probo_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that every call is governed by Arbiter policy and sealed with a cryptographic receipt. This goes beyond a simple read operation and adds valuable behavioral context. It does not mention caching or real-time nature, but the core behavioral traits are 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: first sentence defines purpose and output content, second sentence covers requirements and behavior. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all aspects: what the summary contains (control pass/fail, risk levels, task counts), the required scope, and behavioral notes (policy, receipt). It is complete and independently intelligible.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info (none needed) but effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the only input to the agent's decision.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Probo compliance aggregate summary', listing specific data categories (control pass/fail, risk high/medium/low, task open/done). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_controls and probo_risks which focus on subsets.

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 specifies the required OAuth scope ('integrations:probo:read') and the constitutional policy governance, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternative tools for specific needs, though the aggregate nature implies it for overall status.

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