Reads TASK/RESULT handoff files and a status summary from a root path, enabling agents to inspect current work state and resume or verify tasks.
Read current TASK/RESULT handoff files and status summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful scope detail that it reads TASK/RESULT handoff files, but says nothing about freshness, locking, or whether it reflects in-progress writes.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler and the resource stated up front. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but structurally it is clean.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple read-only single-parameter call. Still missing: the meaning of 'root' and any routing cue versus work_update/process_status, leaving the definition minimally viable.
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 single required parameter 'root' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so neither source explains what root denotes (workspace path, project root, task id?). With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 gives a specific verb ('Read') plus a concrete resource ('TASK/RESULT handoff files and status summary'), so an agent can tell what it returns. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling work_update or the status-oriented process_status.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The pairing with work_update (a write counterpart) and process_status (another status tool) is never mentioned, so the agent must infer which status reader to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.