summon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses latency behavior (daemon/live-stream agents start within a second, others woken via channels) and that the result tells how to make unreachable agents wakeable. It omits auth expectations (api_key) and any rate/side-effect 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and default scope, followed by dense but relevant behavioral detail. Three sentences with little waste, though the behavioral sentence is somewhat packed.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more: it never explains wait, api_key, or project, and gives no return-shape detail beyond a single hint. The core behavior is covered but the parameter surface is largely unexplained.

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 0% across 6 parameters, yet the description only explains `reason`. `wait`, `api_key`, and `project` are entirely undocumented, and agent/agents selection is only implied by the default scope. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (call/wake other agents) and an outcome (see who is ready), with a default scope (every agent except you). It is distinguishable from messaging siblings like msg_send, though 'see who is ready' overlaps conceptually with the `who` sibling.

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 when the tool is useful (waking agents to work now) and explains which agent states respond quickly, but it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. msg_send, who, turn) or states when NOT to use it. Usage is left to inference.

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