inspect_task_state

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

With readOnlyHint already declared, the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral nuance: the baseline excludes pre-existing edits, and the tool executes nothing. It doesn't cover permission requirements or performance characteristics, but the baseline semantics are a meaningful addition.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and enumerates the return contents; every clause earns its place with zero padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates what comes back (files, categories, flags, selected checks). It stops short of explaining the format parameter's rendering difference, but that is already in the schema.

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 both parameters (repo_path and format enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read-only snapshot' of task state) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: changed files, impact categories, risk flags, and selected checks. 'Runs nothing' cleanly separates it from the sibling run_relevant_checks.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use it (inspect state before executing checks), and 'Runs nothing' hints at the alternative, but no explicit when/when-not or sibling routing guidance is given.

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