prepare_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return dict structure and the delegation behavior, and mentions token cost savings. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, but given the nature of generating a prompt, the description is transparent enough.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the purpose, a bullet-like list of return fields, and then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, straightforward output), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, return structure, and delegation logic. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for the single optional parameter 'custom_focus'. The description in the tool text repeats the schema's wording ('Optional custom screening criteria to include'), adding no new semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.

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 generates a summarization prompt for unsummarized papers in today's batch. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'summarization prompt', and the scope is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_review or generate_digest.

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 clear delegation guidance: if summarizer is not 'self', the agent should delegate the prompt elsewhere to save token costs. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like prepare_review or generate_digest, so usage context is good but not exhaustive.

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