Inspect a Reasonix task

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'bounded' suggests output limits, 'Events are opt-in' indicates default behavior, and the note about the default happy path avoiding inspect polling clarifies the expected call pattern. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences that pack maximum information without wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning, from 'recovery-only' to 'no inspect polling'.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (6 parameters, 11 include enums, wait_until). The description gives a strong high-level overview but omits many include options and polling semantics (e.g., how wait_until interacts with wait_ms). It feels too terse to be fully self-sufficient for such a feature-rich 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 carries the full burden, and it does provide semantic hints (e.g., 'optional paginated diff or event output' maps to include/cursor, 'bounded' relates to max_bytes, 'Events are opt-in' relates to include). However, it does not explain task_id, wait_ms, or wait_until, leaving a significant gap for a 6-parameter 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 identifies the tool as an inspection utility for Reasonix tasks, listing specific outputs (status, evidence, interactions, diff/events) and scoping it as 'recovery-only'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (delegate, control) which handle execution and management.

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 explicitly states 'Recovery-only' and 'The default two-call happy path uses no inspect polling', providing clear context for when to use this tool (recovery scenarios) and implying it is not part of the normal flow. It doesn't name alternatives directly but the context is sufficient to differentiate from siblings.

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