inspect_run

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. 'Immutable' and 'summary' do usefully signal a read-only, non-mutating operation that returns a condensed view rather than raw manifest data, but nothing is said about failure behavior for a bad run_dir, permissions, or size limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its scope are stated immediately. Brevity is achieved without redundancy.

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-value detail is not required. However, for a tool whose only input is opaque, the missing run_dir semantics and absent sibling routing leave real gaps an agent would hit when calling it.

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 0% and the single parameter run_dir is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never says whether run_dir is a filesystem path, an ID, or a relative directory, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Return') and resource ('immutable manifest summary for one conversion run'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like audit_run or inspect_iteration. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer, leaving the boundary with audit_run implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus audit_run, inspect_iteration, or inspect_source, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer usage from the name and one-line purpose alone.

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