get_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that small memories return the full file while larger summaries return a bounded digest instead of silently truncating, and it explains the rationale ('client-side truncation would silently hide older entries'). This gives the agent a clear mental model of what to expect.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds one crucial conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean: what it does, then what happens in the edge case. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it defines the resource, explains the primary return behavior, and covers the size-budget edge case with actionable pointers. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the relationship to get_context, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and existing output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics. Per the rubric, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the distilled project memory (summary.md)'. This clearly identifies what the tool does and references a concrete file, distinguishing it from tools like get_project_map and get_instructions. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_context or other sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explains the conditional behavior when the summary exceeds the size budget and mentions follow-up tools like get_issue/search_events, which is useful operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_context or get_plan, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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