tarn_inspect

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

The description states the tool inspects archived reports and includes artifact paths in the response. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or handles errors such as missing runs.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description mentions that the response includes artifact paths. However, it lacks details about error handling, pagination, or the full structure of the report, which would be helpful for a tool with multiple granularity levels.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters. The description adds some context about 'filter_category' and 'target' granularity, but mostly repeats what the schema already provides, so it adds marginal value.

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 clearly states the tool inspects a prior run's archived report at multiple granularities (run, file, test, step). It mentions the optional filter_category and response contents, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tarn_report' or 'tarn_last_failures'.

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 implies the tool is used for inspecting archived reports at different levels, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions to avoid using it.

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