art.memory.get_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior. It correctly describes the returned counts and implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is side-effect free, nor does it mention any error conditions or edge cases (e.g., empty memory). It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get a summary') and lists the key return fields. Every word adds value, with no filler 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?

For a parameterless, read-only summary tool with a clearly enumerated output, the description is complete. An agent needs no further details to invoke it correctly: no inputs, no schema complexity, and the output is specified.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on return payload rather than parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty properties object. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 verb (Get) and resource (summary of the art memory) and enumerates the specific content (anchor count, active decisions, active rejections, total references). This defines a distinct purpose compared to the many granular sibling tools like get_anchor or find_references.

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 usage as an overview, contrasting with the more specific lookup tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions, though the word 'summary' effectively signals its role.

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