analyze_execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'bounded' nature and pagination behavior with next_cursor, which is useful, but it does not add substantial context beyond what annotations and the cursor parameter description already convey.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers actionable pagination and preservation guidance. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists and all parameters are described in the schema, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. The description covers the key behavioral loop (cursor paging) and points to record_analysis for persistence. It could be slightly more explicit about what collections are available, but the schema enum fills that gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces cursor behavior but adds little new parameter meaning beyond the schema's 'Opaque next_cursor' explanation.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one bounded execution-evidence collection'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many analyze_* siblings, but the bounded-collection framing distinguishes it from broader summarization or extraction tools.

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 operational guidance: repeat the same query when next_cursor is present, and use record_analysis to preserve a result. It names an alternative tool for preservation, though it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions against other evidence inspection tools.

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