practice_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the verb 'Read' is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds the specific data categories returned but does not mention any additional behavior such as workspace scoping or timezone effects; with annotations present, the additional burden is limited.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that names exactly what the tool reads. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read-only summary tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover the core semantics: safety, return categories, and optional parameter meanings. It is slightly incomplete only in not routing the agent away from overlapping siblings like practice_analytics.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'timezone' (IANA, defaults to Asia/Shanghai) and 'all_workspaces' (include all available workspaces). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies because the structured schema carries the full weight.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: it reads practice counts, due items, and next due time. This distinguishes it from question/answer/record tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from practice_analytics or clarify whether counts are workspace-wide or scoped.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as practice_analytics, practice_queue, or learning_overview. The description gives no selection conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool names.

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