Inspect a Reasonix task

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 context about bounded output and optional pagination, which hints at size limits and cursor-based navigation. However, it does not explain the bounded behavior further or mention wait_ms semantics.

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 that communicates the core purpose and key features without waste. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description provides only a high-level overview. It omits important details such as the include filtering mechanism, the wait_ms capability, and the exact meaning of 'bounded'. While the output schema covers return values, the description is not fully self-sufficient for a complex 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'paginated diff output' which maps to cursor/max_bytes and include='diff', and lists several data types (status, evidence, interactions, events) that correspond to include enum values. However, it omits several include options (summary, changed_files, diff_stat, verification, risks, usage) and does not explain task_id, cursor, wait_ms, or max_bytes 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('Reasonix task'), and enumerates the specific data types (bounded status, evidence, interactions, events, and paginated diff output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (delegate, control) which imply writing or management actions.

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 begins with 'Use for a Reasonix task' which implies usage context but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. It clearly signals a read-only operation, but lacks explicit when-not/alternative guidance relative to reasonix_delegate and reasonix_control.

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