Inspect work graph

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the graph contains derived readiness and enumerating root-cause kinds ('decision:', 'blocker:', 'failure:', 'cancelled:'), which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the graph contents are front-loaded and the filter options are presented compactly. Every clause adds information about what the tool returns or how to constrain it.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the graph contents and filter choices sufficiently. It does not discuss ordering or pagination, but nothing in the annotations or schema signals that such details are required.

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 sessionId and filter, including the 'Default all' behavior. The description's 'Filter: all | remaining | ready | in_progress | done' restates the enum without adding new meaning, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 precise contents: 'Units with status, derived readiness and root causes..., plus dependency edges,' making it immediately clear this returns a graph snapshot. The title 'Inspect work graph' reinforces the verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_phase or get_session.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named. The readOnlyHint and graph-centric wording imply this is the inspection tool, but the agent must infer the selection context rather than being told.

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