Inspect local Micro development

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description aligns with them — 'Read' matches the read-only nature with no contradiction. Beyond the annotations, the qualifier 'bounded' usefully signals that log output is intentionally limited rather than a full stream, and 'managed local Micro runner' identifies the exact target process, both of which add behavioral context the structured fields do not.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the action verb 'Read', with zero filler — every word ('bounded', 'local', 'managed') carries signal. The length is proportionate to a one-optional-parameter, fully-annotated read tool that also has an output schema.

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 full annotations, complete parameter schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description correctly avoids explaining return values or safety basics. The only genuine gap is that it does not note whether a local runner must already be started (e.g., via micro_dev_start) for reads to succeed, which an agent would have to infer from sibling names — a minor omission for a simple read tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: the single optional path parameter is already documented as 'Micro project directory; defaults to the server working directory'. The description's 'local Micro runner' loosely maps to this parameter but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('bounded process status and logs for the managed local Micro runner'), making the tool's job immediately clear. The qualifiers 'local' and 'bounded' implicitly separate it from broader siblings like micro_status, micro_logs, and micro_platform_status, though no alternative is named explicitly, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'local Micro runner' phrasing implies this tool is for local development inspection, which an agent can infer alongside lifecycle siblings like micro_dev_start and micro_dev_stop. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over micro_status, micro_logs, or micro_platform_status, and no exclusions or alternative routings are given. Usage context is left to inference.

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