Evaluates a RAD read expression while execution is stopped, returning its type, formatted value, diagnostic messages, and cache/epoch evidence for debugging.
Evaluate a RAD read expression while stopped. Returns type, formatted value, messages and explicit cache/epoch evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| expected_run_gen | No | ||
| expected_stop_count | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful precondition that the process must be stopped and hints at cache/epoch evidence in the result, but it says nothing about what happens when the guards mismatch or what errors/messages can surface.
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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'explicit cache/epoch evidence' is jargon-heavy but carries real information.
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 values need not be explained, and the description does signal what comes back. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and two optional concurrency guards, leaving their purpose undocumented is a material 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions expected_run_gen or expected_stop_count, whose guard semantics are entirely opaque and could cause confusing failures if misused. Only 'expression' is indirectly conveyed by 'RAD read expression'.
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 ('Evaluate') and a specific resource ('RAD read expression') with a scope qualifier ('while stopped'), which distinguishes it from siblings like rad_get_state and rad_get_stack that also surface values. It does not name a sibling or contrast explicitly, so it falls just short of 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?
'while stopped' implies the precondition, which is useful, but the description never says what to do if the session is not stopped (e.g., call rad_wait_for_stop first) or when to prefer this over rad_get_state. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.