inspect_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that it catches specific violations but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or error behavior. The examples help but leave gaps.

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, front-loaded sentences with a hyphen to introduce examples. Every word adds information; no fluff or repetition.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and examples of input. Return values are left to the output schema, which is acceptable. Slight lack of guidance on edge cases or error handling.

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% with a description for the single parameter. The description adds value by noting the parameter format matches 'read_task', aiding an agent familiar with that sibling tool.

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 'Validate a task file against FCoP grammar' with specific examples of violations. It distinguishes from raw read operations but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fcop_check or fcop_audit.

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 implies use when deterministic validation is needed, contrasting with 'read_file+regex' agents. It provides context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations.

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