Read Core family membership, REPORT heads, digest, and convergence readiness to verify coordination status and confirm whether the family can proceed.
Read Core family membership, REPORT heads, digest and convergence readiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root_task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies read-only, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the digest or convergence readiness is computed versus stored, how expensive the call is, or what happens when the root has no family.
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?
One compact sentence with the verb and the returned artifacts front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness problem rather than verbosity.
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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain the return shape and the meaning of root_task_id. As written it leaves an agent unable to predict either the input or the output.
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 0% and the single required parameter root_task_id is never mentioned in the description. It is unclear whether this is the root of a task tree, a family identifier, or a task whose descendants are inspected.
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 'Read' and the resource 'Core family membership' are stated, along with three further things returned (REPORT heads, digest, convergence readiness). But 'Core family', 'REPORT heads' and 'convergence readiness' are unexplained domain jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from sibling readers like inspect_task or read_report.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus inspect_task, read_task, or inspect_workspace, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess that this is the aggregate/family-level view rather than a single-task view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.