al4_submission_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the tool returns a 'summarised view' but does not specify what is included in that summary, the scope of data returned, or any side effects. Since it's a read operation, the description should clarify whether it's safe and non-destructive.

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 description is extremely short (one sentence), but it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. It lacks detail needed for effective tool invocation. While it is concise, it is under-specified.

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?

Given the complexity of the domain (submission results with many sibling tools), no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the summary differs from the full view, nor does it mention return formatting or pagination. For a tool with one parameter, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The only parameter 'sid' has no description, and the tool description does not clarify that 'sid' is the submission ID. With no parameter documentation, the description adds no meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides a summarised view of a submission's results. It identifies the resource (submission) and the action (get a summarised view). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like al4_submission_full or al4_submission_get, which could also be described as retrieving results.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For example, it does not explain that this tool should be used when only a summary is needed, while al4_submission_full should be used for complete details. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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