inspect_iteration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Inspect' implies a read-only, non-mutating call, and the output schema covers the return shape, but the text says nothing about permissions, whether inspecting consumes or advances iteration budget, or whether any state is written.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the four things returned with zero filler. It is well-sized, though it spends its whole budget on payload contents rather than routing context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. However, for a tool whose sole parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and with no annotations to convey safety, the definition leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

There is one required parameter, session_path, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no hint about whether it is a filesystem path, a session identifier, or what form is expected.

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 ('inspect') applied to a specific resource ('iteration'), and enumerates what is surfaced: state, budget, pending decisions, next action. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like record_iteration_feedback and decide_iteration_candidate, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the next action' hints that this is a pre-decision orientation call, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., inspect_run, get_runtime_status) that an agent should pick instead.

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