summarize_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it summarizes to reduce context size but does not disclose whether the conversation is modified, if messages are deleted, whether the operation has side effects, or what happens to the original messages. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely alters conversation state.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core function and purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and contains zero filler, making every word earn its place.

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 description is insufficient for a tool that likely mutates conversation state, especially with no annotations or output schema. It does not explain what happens to the conversation, what the summary looks like, or how parameters like keep_last_n influence behavior. The complexity and potential side effects demand a more detailed description.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics—it does not explain how max_tokens or keep_last_n affect the summarization process or how they interact, leaving the schema to carry the full parameter burden.

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 the specific verb 'summarize' and resource 'a conversation' with the clear purpose 'to reduce context size'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like continue_conversation or start_conversation because none of them mention summarization.

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 phrase 'to reduce context size' implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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