get_field_output_summary

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a non-mutating summary operation, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., an existing ODB), error behavior, or whether the ODB must be open, and it does not describe what a 'summary' includes. The output schema covers return shape, but not behavioral traits.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core function is front-loaded. It is concise, though it achieves this by omitting useful differentiating and usage context.

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 large sibling toolset, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It does not explain what type of summary is produced, how it relates to field output requests, or when to prefer it over inspect_odb/extract_kpis. The output schema lessens the need to document return values, but usage context is still 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly maps 'ODB' to odb_path and gives no explanation of timeout or how odb_path is used. This is slightly better than a pure name repetition, but still leaves both parameters under-explained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get summary of field outputs in an ODB.' It clearly conveys this is a read-style summary operation, and 'field outputs' helps distinguish it from history-output tools such as get_history_output, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_history_output, get_xy_data, inspect_odb, or extract_kpis. The description implies use when a field-output summary is wanted, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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