read_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: the content is untrusted paper-derived evidence, quotes are text-validated, and the main LLM must judge whether quotes support claims. This is meaningful trust/verification context beyond any structured field. It stops short of describing what the summary contains or how truncation interacts with max_chars.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then pagination rule, then the trust warning. Every sentence earns its place; the only blemish is the 'next_offset' naming mismatch against the 'offset' parameter.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers pagination termination and content trust but leaves max_chars undefined and does not say what a summary record contains or how partial reads behave. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It gives partial semantics for the pagination cursor ('next_offset until null', albeit named 'next_offset' while the parameter is 'offset') but says nothing about 'max_chars' or what 'summary_id' expects. Roughly one of three undocumented parameters is clarified.

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 and resource: 'Read a saved per-paper summary.' That is clearly distinct from read_passage or retrieve_evidence, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the boundary. An agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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?

Gives operational guidance for sequential reading ('Continue at next_offset until null; do not skip pages'), which tells the agent how to iterate but not when to choose this tool over read_passage or retrieve_evidence. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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