ras_results_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool reads the HDF, does not require HEC-RAS, and presents units according to the project. It does not explicitly state whether it modifies the file, but the summary nature implies read-only; still, an explicit read-only statement would be stronger.

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 dense sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists components without redundant fluff. It is long but earned by the number of features.

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 is complex, and the description covers the major output areas: plan info, QA, unsteady summary, volume accounting, runtime, cross sections, 2D mesh, reference lines, and boundary conditions. It also notes units and the no-HEC-RAS requirement. With no output schema, this provides a solid mental model, though a simple example or output format hint would be slightly more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by mentioning top-N in the cross-section summary, which aligns with top_n, but does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 'One-screen summary of a HEC-RAS results HDF' which clearly identifies the tool's action (summarize) and resource (results HDF). It enumerates the included components, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ras_results_timeseries and ras_results_compare.

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 usage—when you need a consolidated overview of a results file—but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The note 'No HEC-RAS needed' is a useful prerequisite, but more explicit guidance would be better.

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