xenmark_review_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 100-revision cap and the important caveat that inaccessible revisions are silently omitted (a partial-result behavior). It doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, but the silent omission note is a meaningful addition.

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?

A single dense sentence: front-loads the purpose, lists output fields, states the cap, and ends with the access caveat. Every clause earns its place; no 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 read-only aggregation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, limits, and an important edge case (silent omission of inaccessible revisions). It could mention ordering or whether counts are cumulative, but it is largely complete.

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 parameter is well-documented in the schema (array of revision UUIDs, min 1, max 100). The description reinforces the up-to-100 limit but adds little new syntax. Baseline for 1 param with full coverage is high, and the description corroborates the cap.

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+resource ('comment-status rollup for revisions') and enumerates the exact output fields (total_comments, open_count, progress_count, closed_count, last_activity_at). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xenmark_list_comments and xenmark_list_revisions which list rather than aggregate.

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?

Usage is implied by the description - agents can infer to use this when they need aggregated comment status rather than raw lists. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives like xenmark_list_comments is provided.

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