Inspect an orchestration run

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool retrieves state and audit events, implying a read-only action, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or describe the exact return structure. This is moderate transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and delivers the key information efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the core purpose and key usage scenarios, naming the two deliverables (state and audit events). It lacks explicit detail on response structure or potential errors, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 schema already provides a 100% description for the sole parameter runId ('Orchestration run ID'). The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond this, as the connection between runId and the retrieved state is implicitly obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recover') and identifies a clear resource ('durable run state and its audit events'). It distinguishes this inspection tool from execution-focused siblings like bridge_orchestrate_codex and bridge_continue_codex.

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 provides clear usage context ('after a restart or when checking progress'), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of full exclusions.

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