overview_get

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 adds one useful trait (the existence condition), but does not explain what happens if the session hasn't finalized (e.g., error vs. empty response), nor does it confirm read-only semantics or describe the output structure. Some transparency is present, but significant gaps remain.

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 sentence with two concise clauses. It delivers the essential purpose and a key condition without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level idea of the return content ('meta-review synthesis'), but it omits details like the expected structure or format of the overview, and does not clarify behavior when the precondition is unmet. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema already documents the single parameter (session_id) with an example. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'The final research overview for a session: the meta-review synthesis of the ranked hypotheses.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like hypotheses_list (which lists individual hypotheses) and hypothesis_get (fetches a single hypothesis). The resource is explicit, and the verb 'get' is implied by the name.

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 provides a clear usage condition: 'Only exists once the session has finalized.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate to call. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition effectively implies it should be used only after finalization. This is sufficient guidance for a simple retrieval tool.

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