Inspect Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'catches deterministic violations' and provides concrete examples, which signals a read-only validation behavior. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify the file', but the verbs 'validate' and 'inspect' strongly imply it.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the action, and the second sentence adds concrete examples of what the tool catches. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about purpose and typical use. It could strengthen completeness by explicitly stating it is read-only or by naming related validation tools, but these are minor gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it thoroughly, including accepted forms ('Task filename or ID (same forms as read_task)'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details; it also does not add meaningful extra parameter semantics.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Validate a task file against FCoP grammar.' The examples make the tool's scope concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling validation tools like fcop_check, but it does separate itself from raw read_file + regex approaches.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful: when deterministic grammar violations need to be caught, especially ones that raw read_file + regex would miss. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the use case is well implied.

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