get_agent_knowledge_base_summaries_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — not what a 'summary' contains, nor any batching/error behavior for missing ids.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but it is a bare fragment lacking structure or detail. There is no wasted text, yet nothing extra earns its place either.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the returned 'summaries' are and whether they align with the requested ids. With a 1-param required schema and no return-value detail, it is under-specified for what an agent needs to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% for the single document_ids parameter, which is documented as 'The ids of knowledge base documents.' Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description merely echoes 'By Ids' without adding format or limit details.

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 a verb (Get) and resource (Knowledge Base Summaries) scoped to ids, so the basic purpose is discernible. However, it largely restates the tool name/title and gives no differentiation from closely named siblings like get_agent_summaries_route, get_agent_response_tests_summaries_route, or get_knowledge_base_content.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_knowledge_base_content or get_agent_knowledge_base_size. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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