work_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'summarizes' without explaining auth needs, side effects, input constraints (e.g., that repo_path is required), or output characteristics. Key behavioral information is missing.

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 sentence with no waste, which is concise. However, it is overly brief and lacks structure such as bullet points or additional context that would make it more useful for an agent.

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 tool has two parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the time range ('since' parameter defaults to '7d' but is not mentioned), the required repo_path, or the nature of the output. Critical context for correct tool invocation is missing.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'repo_path' or 'since' represent, or how they affect the summary. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the tool 'summarizes development progress and technical debt,' which is a clear verb+resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like code_map or recent_activity, the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand its high-level summarization role.

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 its alternatives (e.g., code_map, recent_activity). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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