summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no indication of input size limits, truncation behavior, whether the summary is extractive or abstractive, or what the return looks like. It is at least non-misleading, but it leaves the agent guessing on every behavioral question.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight around rich content.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description should carry more. It omits input constraints, output shape, and sibling differentiation, so an agent cannot call it confidently in ambiguous cases.

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% and the description only restates max_words as a word cap (its default of 100 is already in the schema) while saying nothing about the required text parameter. It adds little beyond what the schema title already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (Summarize) and resource (text), and constrains the output length via max_words. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling summarize_file, leaving the agent to infer that this one takes inline text rather than a file.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus classify, extract, or summarize_file, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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