inspect_test_stateRead operation records for a synthetic task. Observation timestamps and state describe the test service only. No claim about client receipt or overall agent reliability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | No | Run identifier from start_agent_test. | |
| task_id | No | Task identifier bound to this run. | |
| access_token | No | Secret short-lived run token. Omitted from reports. MCP client history may retain this argument. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful interpretive context by warning that observed timestamps/state 'describe the test service only' and make 'no claim about client receipt or overall agent reliability.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps prevent over-interpreting results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences: the first states the core operation, and the second adds essential caveats. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, fully schema-documented tool, the description covers the key return semantics: observation timestamps and state, plus the important limitation that they only reflect the test service. It does not describe output structure or error cases, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description including the source of run_id, its binding to task_id, and the secret/retention caveat for access_token. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read operation records for a synthetic task.' It also clarifies scope with 'Observation timestamps and state describe the test service only,' which distinguishes this from broadly claiming client-side outcomes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_agent_test_report or execute_test_action. The phrase 'for a synthetic task' supplies some context, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.