martin_run_dossier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no side effects are implied. The description adds some transparency by stating what is loaded ('attempts, events, artifacts, and related discovery surfaces'), but it does not clarify what 'governed' means or whether authorization/access constraints apply beyond 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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and target ('Return the full governed execution dossier for one Martin run') and then lists the dossier contents. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or the input 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?

For a read-only inspection tool with no required parameters, complete schema documentation, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential scope and content. It could be more explicit about selecting among the three input methods, but the schema already communicates that.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema, including the file/loopId/latest alternatives. The description does not add anything about how to pick among file, latest, or loopId, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('full governed execution dossier for one Martin run'), followed by what the dossier includes. It reads clearly as a read-only lookup scoped to a single run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling martin_dossier.

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 phrase 'for one Martin run' implies the tool is appropriate when a single run's complete dossier is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like martin_get_run, martin_get_attempt, or martin_dossier. Usage context is present but left implied.

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