Inspect a governed 2ools Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying that raw prompts, tool arguments, credentials, and source bytes are not returned, and that run traces are 'redacted append-only' with 'immutable revision summaries'. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states what the tool does and what it does not return. No extraneous words or filler. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key data included and excluded. Minor gaps: it does not explain ordering of run traces or behavior when run_limit is exceeded, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters (e.g., how run_limit affects results or the format of agent_id). Baseline score 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 lists the exact data returned (Limits, trigger, revision summaries, run traces) and explicitly states what is NOT returned. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_project_agents' which list agents rather than inspect a single one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_project_agents' to find an agent ID, or when to avoid it. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and siblings, placing the burden on the agent to infer.

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