opencdr_detection_recovery_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description is not required to restate it. The description adds the fleet-vs-core deployment context, which is real added value, but says nothing about what a call returns or whether an unset recovery_id returns plans versus receipts.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the inspection target is front-loaded before the mode caveat. The phrasing is a bit elliptical ('identity/digest'), but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter inspection tool it is roughly adequate, and annotations plus the absence of an output schema reduce what must be spelled out. Still, with both parameters nullable and no return documentation, an agent lacks enough to predict the two distinct result shapes the description itself implies.

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 carries the full burden, and it only covers one of the two parameters: agent_id's fleet/core semantics are explained well. recovery_id is never mentioned, leaving the primary selector for a 'saved rotation plan/receipt' ambiguous in how it relates to the inspection target.

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 verb 'Inspect' is combined with an abstract resource pair ('physical feed identity/digest' or 'a saved rotation plan/receipt'), which hints at what is returned but never states plainly that this reports detection recovery status. A reader cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from sibling status tools such as opencdr_detection_handoff_status or opencdr_detection_backfill_status.

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 definition gives a concrete operational rule for modes ('In fleet mode, supply agent_id explicitly. Core mode leaves agent_id unset'), which is genuinely useful calling guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many sibling *_status tools, so selection still requires inference from the name.

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