session_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Call with no arguments', describes the output ('Dict with scope snapshot, session summary counts, and recent audit events'), and lists prerequisites as None. This exceeds the typical transparency level, though it doesn't explicitly mention read-only semantics, which are implied.

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 concise but has slight redundancy: the opening sentence, OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION, and Returns section all convey similar information. The structured key-value layout is efficient and front-loads the core purpose, but the duplication prevents a perfect score.

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 zero-parameter signature, the description covers the use case, output format, and example call adequately. The output schema is present, so it doesn't need to detail return values, but it still provides a high-level summary. Minimal guidance on alternative tools is provided, but the simplicity of the tool makes this sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds clarity by explicitly stating 'Call with no arguments' and INPUT_DESCRIPTION=None, ensuring the agent knows no input is required.

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 'Summarize the current engagement: scope, scans, findings, recent audit,' naming a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all individual recon/scan utilities, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a USECASE ('Get a quick status view of the engagement') and lists RELATED_TOOLS (generate_report, scope_manage), giving context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case and related tools imply the appropriate context.

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