typesafe_usage_summary

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

Beyond the annotations declaring readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds crucial behavioral disclosure: it never runs a baseline and labels savings as theoretical. This prevents an agent from over-interpreting the numbers and adds real value beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool does and what it returns, and the second sentence adds a key caveat about baseline behavior and theoretical savings. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the scope, the data fields returned, the caveat about theoretical savings, and the fact that no baseline is run. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, with schema description coverage at 100%. The parameter description in the schema already explains that comparison_model filters the current-process summary, so the tool description does not need to repeat it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') with a clear resource ('Jev calls made by the current MCP server process') and enumerates the exact content: tool count, token usage, elapsed time, and substitute-model intent. This clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools like typesafe_route and typesafe_verify.

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 makes clear this is a process-level usage summary rather than an operational tool, which effectively indicates when it applies. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that the usage context is unambiguous.

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