shift_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the summary includes but does not explain side effects, permissions, or behavior when the optional video_id is null. The tool appears to be a read-only summary, but this is not stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope of the summary.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide enough context about the optional parameter and the overall shift aggregation. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, making it insufficient for a tool with such sparse schema information.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameter's meaning. It does not explain that video_id identifies a processed shift, nor how the summary changes when video_id is null. The connection between 'video_id' and 'shift' is left ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Summarise') and resource ('processed shift'), and specifies the summary content (volumes, alert mix, filtered out). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_processed_videos and list_alerts by presenting an aggregated view.

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 implies the tool is used when a summary of a processed shift is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or provide any exclusions. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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