credence_session_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The name suggests a summary, but behavioral details are 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 two sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the purpose ('Brief of unverified constraints for a session.') followed by return details and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 presence of an output schema (not fully shown, but context indicates it exists), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It covers the key points for a low-complexity tool, but could mention that the tool is read-only or define 'unverified constraints' for clarity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema descriptions. It does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 it provides a brief of unverified constraints for a session and lists the return fields (action_required, unverified_count, summary list). It distinguishes itself from siblings like credence_constraints or credence_verify by focusing on a summary, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 implies usage: 'so the model can decide whether to snapshot or prompt the user to verify.' It gives a hint about when to use (before making decisions), but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.

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