triage_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (counts) but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The output description adds some transparency, but fails to address broader behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief summary of output. No filler or irrelevant details. Every word contributes value.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context—what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks usage alternatives and deeper behavioral notes, but these are partially covered in other dimensions. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward summarization tool.

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 100% for the single parameter (target_id states 'The target to summarize.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does not elaborate on what constitutes a target or how to format the ID.

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 action (Get), the resource (per-target summary of all findings), and the specific output (counts by status, vuln_class, and confidence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like triage_get and triage_list by focusing on aggregated counts rather than individual findings.

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 purpose inherently conveys usage: use when you need a summary of findings for a target. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate. Lack of explicit 'when not to use' prevents a 5.

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