session_summarize

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

Annotations cover mutation and idempotency, and the description adds the important replacement semantic ('It replaces any earlier recap') plus the fact that the call yields a confirmation — neither of which is in the annotations or an output schema. It doesn't state permissions or authoring constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, the core action and scope front-loaded, with the sibling pointer last. 'Answers a confirmation' is slightly stilted, but nothing is padded.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what is recorded, the replacement behavior, and that a confirmation is returned, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits any error or permission caveats, so not a full 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by specifying what belongs in the required 'text' payload (findings, prioritized risks, remaining work), which the schema's terse 'The recap, in Markdown' does not convey. It adds little about sessionId beyond what the schema already explains.

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 specific verb and resource ('Record a guided review's overall recap') plus the scope of that recap (findings, top risks, what's left). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from review_summarize_file, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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 a clear timing condition ('once the routed files are done') and names the sibling to use for per-file notes. It lacks an explicit when-not case, but the overall-vs-per-file split effectively covers the main routing decision.

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