anon_get_physical_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the return shape (totals + per-category aggregation) and the auth fact that the project is derived from the API key, so no projectId is needed.

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 purpose and return content, followed by a compact permission note and endpoint/auth line. The GET path is somewhat redundant technical noise but the text is otherwise tight and waste-free.

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 zero-parameter read-only summary with no output schema, the description explains the return contents (totals plus aggregated category metrics) and the auth model, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Slightly more detail on the aggregation granularity would complete it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also preempts a likely confusion by explaining that projectId is not required because the project is inferred from the API key, adding meaning over the (empty) schema.

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+resource ('实物清单汇总' / physical inventory summary) and states the exact aggregate output (totals plus per-category planned/in-stock/in-use/loss/item counts), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like anon_get_physical_items and anon_get_physical_categories.

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?

It states the prerequisite that project members may use it ('项目成员可用'), which implies usage context, but it never explicitly says when to choose this summary over anon_get_physical_items or anon_get_physical_categories, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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