tsm_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'risk flags' which are not reflected in the input schema, leaving output behavior unclear. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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 extremely concise: one sentence front-loaded with the core purpose. Every part is informative and earns its place. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain the return format, error conditions, or limitations. It mentions 'bullet points and risk flags' but provides no detail on how they are structured, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'risk flags' but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It adds minimal value.

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 compresses long text into a concise summary with bullet points and risk flags. It distinguishes from sibling tools like classification and code generation. However, 'risk flags' are not defined in the schema, causing slight ambiguity.

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 examples of when to use the tool ('long conversations, logs, documents, or diff context'), but does not specify when not to use it or guide toward alternative tools. The usage context is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.

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