Inspect work

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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly aligns with them. Beyond that, it adds the constraint that only one selector can be supplied at a time and clarifies the different scopes (workspace, task, agent, message). This additional behavioral context is valuable and not present in the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read') and lists the scope. There is zero fluff; every word earns its place, and the selector constraint is clearly stated at the end.

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 inspection tool with four optional parameters, the description adequately explains the various selection modes and the workspace resolution behavior. It does not describe the return format, but given the tool name and the read-only nature, the output is self-evident. With no output schema, this would be a minor gap, but the description covers enough for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds the global constraint of 'at most one selector' and restates the resource types, but it does not provide deeper semantics beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 a specific verb 'Read' and lists the distinct resources (workspace, task, agent inbox/outbox, prompt/reply thread), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (start_work, update_work, etc.) which are all actions, while this is the only inspection tool.

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 usage by stating that at most one selector can be supplied, which is useful for invoking the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. The distinction from siblings is obvious from the tool names, but the description itself does not verbalize it.

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