continuum_record_summary

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

With only readOnlyHint=false for annotations, the description carries most of the load and does disclose persistence semantics (a fresh session inherits the state) and a hard 4096-character cap with the instruction to summarise, not dump transcripts. It doesn't say whether a new call replaces or merges with a prior summary, or what happens when the cap is exceeded.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then trigger timing, then the schema sketch, then the size constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the state-shape guidance is strong. However, for a write tool with seven parameters, the unexplained required run_id and the opaque pinning field leave a real gap the agent must resolve by trial.

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%, and the inline schema sketch genuinely explains four parameters well – plan_stack ordered current-step-first, decisions as {what, why} pairs, open_questions, and working_set as files/ids in play. But the required run_id, plus note and pinning, get no explanation at all, leaving the agent to guess how run_id is obtained and what pinning does.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: record a compact summary of reasoning state so an interrupted session can resume the plan. The intent is unmistakable, but with siblings like continuum_record_progress, continuum_record_plan, and continuum_checkpoint in the same family, the description never says how this differs from those.

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?

Gives real timing guidance: 'Call at natural checkpoints and before ending a turn,' which tells the agent when to fire it. It stops short of exclusions or alternatives – nothing says when to prefer continuum_record_progress or continuum_checkpoint instead.

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