summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without revealing key traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any dependencies like API keys. The mention of 'model' and 'provider' parameters hints at configurability but does not clarify side effects or requirements.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is functional but not fully complete. It lacks information about return values or usage scenarios, though the schema fills in parameter details. The description could benefit from a brief note on expected output or positioning against sibling tools.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (text, model, provider). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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's action ('Summarize') and the resource types ('complex codebases, documentations, or technical specifications'). This verb+resource structure effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'explain_code' or 'review_code', which imply different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool (for summarizing complex technical material) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.

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