rlm_get_summaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, behavior when no summaries exist, effect of parameters). Critical gaps exist.

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 short (three words), which fails to provide necessary detail. Conciseness is not a virtue when it omits essential information.

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 the lack of output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no behavioral disclosure, the description is severely incomplete. It does not arm the agent with enough information to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (document_path, summary_type, include_content). It adds no meaning 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 uses a clear verb 'retrieve' and resource 'stored summaries', and the sibling tools like rlm_store_summary and rlm_delete_summary help differentiate the action. However, it does not specify what the summaries are associated with (e.g., documents), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_recall or rlm_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not help the agent decide context.

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