emu_get_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing: no side effects, no caching semantics, no expectations about the counters (e.g., live vs. cached, scoping, or reset behavior). An agent cannot anticipate what executing this tool will do or return.

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 only six words, which is maximally concise, but it is incomplete rather than deliberately focused. There is no wasted wording, but the extreme brevity fails to earn its place by adding substance; it reads as a placeholder rather than a well-structured definition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply nearly all context for an agent to invoke the tool usefully. It provides none: no return format, no domain context for 'v2 summary counters', no relationship to other tools. This is grossly incomplete for a tool in a large emulator family.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100% for an empty schema. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter detail. A baseline of 3 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get v2 summary counters' identifies a verb ('get') and a resource ('v2 summary counters') but without any detail on what these counters represent. It is not a pure tautology, but it is so terse that it provides only marginal clarity beyond the tool name, and it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling 'get' tools.

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?

There is no information about when to use this tool as opposed to the dozens of siblings like emu_get_cdr_history, emu_get_curri_history, or emu_get_evidence. No context, conditions, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent entirely on its own.

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