get_fixture_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output categories but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what scope it applies to (active file, active plot, all data), or how include_old affects results. 'Grand totals' hints at a non-mutating summary, but important behavioral context remains missing.

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 compact fragment that front-loads the key concept, 'Grand totals', followed by a precise list of what is included. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 description omits essential context such as the data scope (active file/plot vs. entire project) and the meaning of include_old. Although an output schema exists, the description itself does not provide enough for an agent to correctly know when and how to invoke this tool, especially given stateful sibling tools like set_active_file and set_active_plot.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the include_old parameter at all. An agent gets no help understanding what 'old' means or how the boolean changes the summary, so the parameter semantics are effectively undocumented.

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 identifies a summary/aggregation tool: 'Grand totals: fixture count, total wattage, layer count, device-type breakdown' tells an agent what data will be returned. It distinguishes itself from get_fixture_counts by covering totals and breakdowns, but it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the 'get' action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_fixture_counts, get_fixture_details, or get_layers. The phrase 'Grand totals' implies aggregate use, but the description never states a scope such as active file/plot, nor when this summary is preferred over more granular tools.

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