scf_get_window_assessment_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by naming the statuses (including insufficient_sample) and clarifying that cost is in cents, but it does not disclose aggregation window behavior, empty-organization responses, or any data freshness caveats.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds information: the resource, the dashboard context, and the specific metrics returned.

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 one-parameter, read-only summary tool, the description adequately communicates what the caller gets: totals, status counts, average relevance, and cost unit. The input schema fully documents the only parameter. It falls slightly short only by not explicitly distinguishing usage from the closest sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the org_id parameter is already well described as an Organization UUID sourced from scf_list_organizations. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate windowed-assessment metrics for the organization dashboard'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned. The word 'aggregate' clearly distinguishes this from per-window siblings like scf_get_window_assessment and scf_list_window_assessments.

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 phrase 'for the organization dashboard' provides some implied usage context for high-level summary reporting. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over scf_get_window_assessment, scf_list_window_assessments, or scf_trigger_window_assessment, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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