Inspect Complete OMP Task Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds value by disclosing that the tool is for 'terminal' jobs and retrieves 'attempt logs,' which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. Score of 4 reflects strong transparency with minor room for additional context (e.g., what happens if the job is not terminal).

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the function, the second defines when to use it. No waste, no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key context: what the tool retrieves, when to call it, and when not to. A slight gap is not specifying that the job must be terminal, but this is implied by 'terminal OMP job.' Score of 4 reflects strong completeness.

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%, meaning the tool description must compensate. The description does not add meaning to the 'job_id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (required string with minLength). However, the parameter is simple and self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not actively add value but the parameter is trivial.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a terminal OMP job, specifically 'finalResponse and attempt logs.' The verb 'retrieve' is specific, and the resource 'terminal OMP job' is well-defined. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'omp_run_compact' or 'omp_cancel' which have different purposes.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'call this only when minimal acceptance check fails, high-risk operations occurred, or the user explicitly asks for full inspection; do not call this after every successful compact run.' This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use this tool, differentiating it from routine monitoring tools.

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