martin_inspect

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

The 'Summarise' wording is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, so there is no contradiction. The description adds that the tool reads from a saved loop file or run-store directory, but it does not disclose behavior like what happens when no parameters are supplied or when both paths conflict. Given the safety info is already in annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

This is a single, tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler or unnecessary repetition. It conveys the action and the target source in only a few words, which is appropriate for a tool whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and whose return structure is provided by an output schema.

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?

Given the small parameter count, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate invocation context. However, it does not explain what happens when neither parameter is provided, nor does it place the tool in a workflow relative to run-status or retrieval siblings, leaving some context for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, so both optional parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only broad context ('file or run-store directory') and does not enrich the parameter semantics further, so the schema carries the bulk of the meaning.

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 ('Summarise') and names the exact resource ('Martin Loop run records') plus the source ('saved loop file or run-store directory'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool operates on. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly separate itself from similar siblings like martin_get_run or martin_list_runs.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or what conditions make it the right choice. It hints at working with saved local loop files and run-store directories, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing.

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