martin_pr_summary

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description ('Generate') aligns with these. No additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., whether the output is persisted, or if it requires an existing run). With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal context beyond the title, but does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence. It front-loads the main action and output. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; given the complexity (5 parameters, oneOf constraints), a slightly longer description would have been more helpful.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret it. With 0% parameter coverage, no usage guidelines, and no behavioral details, the description fails to equip an agent for correct invocation. The tool's functionality (generating a PR summary) is too vaguely described for effective use.

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%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the parameters (file, loopId, latest, format, runsDir). The schema itself has no descriptions for properties. The agent must guess the meaning and usage of these fields, leading to high ambiguity.

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 tool generates a PR title and body with a dossier block for a completed run. It specifies the output (PR summary with dossier block) and distinguishes from siblings like martin_create_pr (which creates the PR) by focusing on summary generation. However, the title is null, and the description could be more specific about the exact resource being produced.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like martin_create_pr or martin_dossier. The description mentions 'for a completed run' but does not clarify prerequisites, nor does it contrast with similar tools. The agent must infer usage from context, which is insufficient.

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