Reads the acceptance loop's per-iteration pass/fail counts, status, and current decision without running another iteration, so you can monitor debug progress.
Read the acceptance loop's trajectory (per-iteration pass/fail counts, status) and the current decision without running an iteration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | Target session id (default 'default'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: that this is a passive inspection that does not trigger an iteration and that it returns trajectory plus decision state, which is beyond what the annotations convey.
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 leads with the action and resource and packs the scope constraint and return contents with zero filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (pass/fail counts, status, decision). Annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gap: no mention of how the trajectory is scoped or paginated, but complete enough to call correctly.
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?
Only one optional parameter ('session', default 'default') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 ('Read') and resource ('the acceptance loop's trajectory'), and enumerates the returned data (per-iteration pass/fail counts, status, current decision). The clause 'without running an iteration' functionally distinguishes it from sibling run_acceptance_iteration.
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?
'Without running an iteration' implies this is the non-mutating status-check counterpart to run_acceptance_iteration, giving implied usage. However, it names no alternative explicitly and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.