get_run_summary

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

The description discloses that the tool is unavailable, but not what happens when invoked—error message, exception, empty result, or otherwise. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and leaves the side effects opaque.

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?

Two short sentences with the unavailability message front-loaded. It is compact and free of padding, though the second sentence is of questionable practical value.

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 tool that presumably would return run summaries, the description omits the core purpose, behavior, and expected output. Even with no parameters and no output schema, an agent has no way to understand what get_run_summary is for, making the context incomplete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parametric information. The description adds no parameter details, but none are required; the baseline for 0 params 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 does not state what get_run_summary does; it only reports that signal-mcp is not configured. The name implies fetching a run summary, but the description never confirms that, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like get_run_status or list_runs.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction, 'Call it to see why,' is a diagnostic prompt rather than a use case and does not connect to the tool's apparent purpose.

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