Evac list summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description's '(read-only)' merely restates that. Nothing is added about what the summary contains, whether it is scoped to the whole project or a selection, or how stale the data may be.

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 operative sentence is short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The bracketed rules line is terse but its purpose is not explained, so it reads as noise to an agent unfamiliar with the bulc convention.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what the 'summary' returns, and it does not (no fields, no indication of whether it covers agents, journeys, stairs, or all of them). It is minimally sufficient to invoke but not to interpret the result.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('evacuation module status summary'), so the agent knows it is a read of evacuation state. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling evac_status, which appears to cover overlapping ground, leaving some ambiguity about which summary tool to pick.

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 call this versus evac_status, evac_get_results, or hvac_list_summary/spr_list_summary. The second line points at rule IDs and bulc_knowledge_search, but that is compliance routing rather than usage guidance for this tool.

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