scf_get_window_assessment_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read and specifies the output fields, but it does not mention potential limitations (e.g., performance impact, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the aggregation is real-time or cached). This is adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key outputs. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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), the description is fairly complete. It details the return values (total windows, status counts, average relevance, total cost), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It lacks explicit mention of the data source or any caveats, but for a summary endpoint this is sufficient.

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?

The only parameter, org_id, is documented in the input schema with a clear description and format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving aggregate windowed-assessment metrics for the organization dashboard. It lists the exact metrics returned (total windows, status counts, average relevance, total cost) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scf_get_window_assessment, which operates at the individual assessment level.

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 this tool is for generating dashboard-level summaries but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks guidance on exclusions (e.g., not for detailed per-window data) or context like recommended use cases. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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