Inspect Kanban run output

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile well. The description adds value by disclosing that output is redacted, that it's a 'typed wrapper' of a specific GET endpoint, and that process control remains unwrapped/denied — useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, both substantive, covering endpoint, data read, redaction behavior, and process-control boundary. No redundant filler. Slightly technical ('Typed GET...wrapper') but efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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 inspection tool with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), an output schema, and one fully-described parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It discloses redaction and process-control denial, which are key behavioral facts. Combined with the good annotations, this is adequate for safe agent usage.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description ('Kanban run id to inspect, e.g. 741 or run_xxxxxxxx') already documents the single required parameter with format examples. The description adds minimal param meaning beyond identifying that it reads run output, so baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('reads per-run captured output') and clearly distinguishes the tool's scope as a read-only inspection of run output. It does distinguish from siblings somewhat by specifying the read-only inspect nature and that process control remains denied/unwrapped, though it doesn't name an alternative tool explicitly.

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 states what the tool reads ('per-run captured output with stdout/stderr preview, redacted') and notes that process control is denied, giving some context. However, it doesn't explicitly tell the agent WHEN to choose this over alternatives like hermes_kanban_run_get or hermes_api_runs_get, nor what distinguishes it from other run-related tools.

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