info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what the summary includes (recorder, language, capabilities, etc.), which is not in annotations. It does not disclose any surprising side effects, but none are expected given the annotations. It could mention that it reads the most recent trace by default, but that is covered in the schema default.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('summarize one trace') and then lists the key components concisely. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description's list of what the summary includes (recorder, language, capabilities, etc.) effectively informs the agent of the return content. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers its purpose and usage. It doesn't explain the 'redaction stamp' term, but that is domain-specific and not necessary for invocation.

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 schema describes the single parameter 'run' fully (run id, unique prefix, or 'last'). The description does not add any additional semantics about this parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 the tool's function: 'summarize one trace' and lists the specific content included (recorder, language, capabilities, etc.). It is not a tautology and provides a distinct purpose. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'runs' or 'tree', but the 'summarize' verb and the list of fields make its role clear.

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 includes a usage directive: 'read it before any other question on a run.' This tells the agent when to use this tool first, implying it's a starting point. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before any other question' guidance provides clear context.

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