get_study_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the output format (formatted text showing study name, status, objectives, target persona, and sections) and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention edge cases or errors, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, usage context, return-value breakdown, and an Args section. It is concise (about 50 words) with no filler, each line adds value.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (one parameter) and provides a clear return description. The description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and expected output, making it complete for the given complexity. The presence of an output schema also means detailed return values need not be fully specified.

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 only has 'study_id' with the title 'Study Id' and no detailed description. The description adds meaning by explaining it as 'The unique identifier of the study,' which goes beyond the schema. With only one required parameter, this level of explanation is adequate.

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 explicitly states 'Get a formatted, human-readable summary of a study' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_study by clarifying that it is for presentation, not programmatic field access.

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 clear usage guidance: use it to present study details after creation or modification, and explicitly says not to use it for programmatic access, directing to get_study instead. This explicitly names an alternative and clarifies when this tool is appropriate.

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