inspect_run_receipt

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions output formats, not side effects, idempotency, or whether any state changes occur. Based on 'return', likely read-only but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence, very concise. No fluff, but may sacrifice necessary detail. Could be improved with slightly more structure (e.g., separating identifiers from format).

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. Does not explain what a run receipt is, typical use cases, error handling, or response structure. Lacks completeness for a data retrieval 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 has 0% description coverage; description adds meaning by indicating run_id/swarm_id as identifiers and format as output type. However, it does not clarify if both run_id and swarm_id are needed or mutually exclusive, nor provide default values.

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 returns an operator run receipt by run_id/swarm_id, and specifies output formats (JSON, Markdown, HTML). It differentiates from sibling inspect tools by focusing on a 'run receipt', though 'run receipt' is not further defined.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like inspect_status or inspect_task. Does not mention prerequisites or constraints (e.g., run must be complete).

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