Inspect a governed 2ools Agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it explicitly states that raw prompts, tool arguments, credentials, and source bytes are not returned, and describes the return as redacted and append-only. This informs the agent about data sensitivity and completeness without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and key result, and avoids irrelevant details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and limitations, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (Limits, trigger, revision summaries, traces) and what is excluded. It lacks a description of the response structure or pagination behavior, but the schema covers the parameters and the sibling tools provide context. Good overall, with room to explicitly reference list_project_agents for alternative use.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text for both agent_id and run_limit. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema; for instance, it mentions 'run traces' but does not elaborate on the run_limit parameter. Thus 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one Agent's saved Limits, trigger, immutable revision summaries, and redacted append-only run traces'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_project_agents (which lists agents) and run_project_agent (which runs agents), and adds exclusions to avoid ambiguity.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool by stating it reads a single agent, contrasting with the plural list_project_agents. It also notes that raw prompts and credentials are not returned, which guides against using it when those are needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving some room for interpretation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.