get_plan_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns a summary rather than raw records, but it does not explain what the summary contains, how events and actions are associated, whether any filtering exists, or what the output structure looks like.

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 direct sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though the brevity comes at the cost of usage and behavioral context.

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 tool with no output schema, the description names the return concept ('high-level summary of all events and their associated actions') and implies a read operation. However, it lacks detail about what the summary contains, and the absence of annotations leaves the agent with minimal context about behavior or output.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. For a parameterless tool, the baseline is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('high-level summary of all events and their associated actions'). It clearly indicates an aggregated, high-level view that differs from the individual event/action CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_events, list_actions, get_event, or get_action. The description implies it is for overviews, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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