live_set_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, mutability, side effects, performance implications). The one-word description adds no transparency beyond the name.

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?

While brief, the description sacrifices clarity for conciseness. It is underspecified for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, failing to earn its place by providing necessary context.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain what 'set' refers to, return format, or how parameters affect behavior.

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 only 8% (1 of 12 parameters described). The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'track_limit', 'track_query', etc. Parameters are left completely unexplained.

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 'Compact set summary' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'live_set_summary', adding only the word 'compact' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves, generates). It does not distinguish it from siblings like 'live_set' or 'live_get'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., 'live_set', 'live_get'). The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.

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