Inspect a recovery case

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'Local and read-only' largely restates those two facts rather than adding to them. It does contribute the scope of the data read ('recorded run history'), but says nothing about behavior on a missing case directory, result size, or whether output is bounded. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two very short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The only slack is the trailing 'Local and read-only' clause, which duplicates what the annotations already convey.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present, but the agent gets no sense of what the run history contains or how it is shaped. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on the returned structure would have closed the remaining gap.

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 a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that 'case' is an absolute path. The description adds no format, resolution, or error semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: 'Read the recorded run history of a case.' An agent can distinguish this read-history operation from siblings like collect, start, verify or publish. It stops short of naming any sibling or explicitly contrasting scope, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no ordering hint relative to covera_recovery_start or covera_recovery_verify, and no statement of when not to use it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'recorded run history.'

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