inspect_proof_guided_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'without advancing it', indicating no state change. It implies a read-only inspection. However, it does not mention auth requirements, idempotence, or other side effects. The key behavioral trait is disclosed, but more detail could improve transparency.

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 a single short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: it identifies the action, the resource, and the key constraint ('without advancing'). No unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core action and constraint. However, it does not explain the role of session_id or how to obtain it. The tool is part of a proof-guided workflow, and while the description is mostly complete, a brief mention of the session_id parameter would improve clarity.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter session_id, but schema description coverage is 0% (no description in schema). The tool description does not mention session_id or add any meaning beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 inspects the last durable proof-guided response without advancing it. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('proof-guided context response'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'advance_proof_guided_context' by explicitly noting 'without advancing it'.

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 when to use this tool: to inspect the last response without progressing the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the contrast with advancing. The context of sibling tools ('prepare', 'advance') provides clear context, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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