output_summary

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 discloses that the file must already exist and that the tool re-reads rather than repeats a run, conveying a read-only, non-executing behavior. It does not detail error handling or response shape, but for a summarizer this is reasonably transparent.

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 purpose and content scope are front-loaded, and the usage context is delivered compactly in the second sentence. Every phrase 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what it summarizes and when to use it, while the schema handles include values and max_rows. It does not describe the response format or truncation behavior, but these are minor gaps given the simple read-only purpose.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description references the `include` parameter but does not add meaning beyond the schema, which already documents all parameters, defaults, and value options. No additional parameter clarification is needed.

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 and resource: 'Summarise an Mplus .out file that already exists.' It enumerates the content covered (status, warnings, fit, parameter estimates) and clarifies via 're-read ... without repeating it' that this is distinct from running or creating output.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: for output produced outside this server or for re-reading an existing run without re-running it. This implies it is not for new analyses and differentiates it from run_file/run_syntax, though it does not name sibling tools or state exclusions directly.

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