invariance_run_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: that fetches are performed in parallel and that the result is a composite object with specific keys. This is more than a bare restatement of 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?

Three sentences, all information-dense: the first defines the composite purpose, the second gives a CLI mirror for recognition, and the third provides usage guidance. No wasted words and the primary purpose 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 composite tool with no output schema, the description specifies the exact return keys ({run, metrics, narrative, recent_nodes, open_findings}), covers the parallel fetch behavior, and provides usage context. Parameter details are left to the schema, which covers 'limit' sufficiently and 'id' is self-evident from the tool name, so nothing critical is missing for selection and 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 only 50% (only 'limit' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning: it does not explain that 'id' refers to the run ID or that 'limit' controls recent_nodes count, though the latter is already covered in the schema. The agent gets minimal additional help beyond the 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-resource pairing ('Composite triage view for a run') and enumerates exactly what it fetches: run, metrics, narrative, recent nodes, and open findings. This clearly differentiates it from singleton siblings like invariance_run_get or invariance_run_metrics by positioning it as the composite view.

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?

It explicitly states 'Best first call when an agent is asked to debug a run,' giving a clear trigger context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the composite nature and debug-first positioning sufficiently guide selection.

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