This session's activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: it must be pulled explicitly and cannot be auto-injected, which explains why an agent should invoke it proactively. Return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: the content summary comes first, then the invocation guidance and the caveat about non-automatic delivery. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema describing the return value and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces — what is aggregated and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 ('Summarise') and resource ('what has routed through this gateway in this project') and enumerates the covered content: tools used, files written, errors, git operations. The scope is unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like mcptoon_usage or mcptoon_inspect that might also report activity.

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 a concrete trigger — 'Call it after a context compaction to catch up on where you were' — plus the important clarification that it is on-demand and the gateway cannot inject into context. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of a 5.

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