martin_get_attempt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the tool returns a 'summary with artifact directory references', which is useful but does not elaborate on what those references are or how they are structured. Given the read-only and idempotent hints, the bar is lower, and the description provides some additional context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes key details (attempt summary, artifact directory references, canonical run). It is efficient and readable, with no unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has four parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description provides a high-level purpose but does not clarify which parameters are required or how they interact (e.g., the relationship between file and loopId). Given the complexity and available schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete for edge cases.

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%, meaning each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool's description adds limited value beyond the schema, mainly implying that the tool focuses on a single attempt and that attemptIndex defaults to the latest. It does not explain how the parameters interplay (e.g., file versus loopId). Baseline 3 is correct because the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Load'), a specific resource ('one Martin attempt summary'), and the key scope ('for a canonical run'). It is clear what the tool does at a high level, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like martin_get_run or martin_get_verification_results, which also appear to retrieve run-related data.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings. For instance, it does not indicate that this tool is for inspecting a specific attempt within a run, while martin_get_run might be for whole-run details. There is no explicit guidance on which scenarios warrant this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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