mike_results_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool identifies the global maximum over the entire run, which may fall in the warm-up period. This critical behavioral nuance is well explained, though return format details are implied rather than explicit.

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 extremely concise, containing only two sentences and a note. All information is front-loaded and relevant, with no superfluous words.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate completeness by explaining the output's nature and the warm-up caveat. However, it could be more detailed about the output format or error cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the purpose of skip_hours (excluding warm-up) and quantities (per-quantity summary). Schema coverage is 67%, and the description fills some gaps, especially for the res1d parameter by specifying the file type (.res1d).

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 it provides a per-quantity peak summary with specific fields (peak value, element, chainage, time) from a MIKE+ .res1d file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mike_results_list or mike_results_read that serve different purposes.

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 provides practical guidance on warm-up periods and instructs using skip_hours to exclude initial windows, advising to always check peak_time. While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the note offers clear usage conditions.

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