fetch_checks_summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It only mentions return values and minimal error handling.

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 contains redundancy (e.g., 'Use this to get the summary on checks' followed by 'Get checks summary...'). It could be more concise, but the structure with Args/Returns is clear.

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 an implied output schema, and the description covers the return fields (complianceSummary, error). The input parameters are explained, and usage context is provided. It is sufficiently complete for a summary tool, though the structure of complianceSummary could be detailed more.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter ('id' as asset run ID, 'resourceType' as resource type). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema structure, though it lacks details on possible value formats or constraints.

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 it provides a summary of checks for a given asset run ID and resource type, with a compliance breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_checks by explicitly referencing when to use this summary.

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 gives a specific condition for use: when total items in fetch_checks is high. It implicitly suggests using fetch_checks for lower counts, and names the sibling tool fetch_checks, providing clear guidance.

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