summarize_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the tool (read-only summary) and the kind of data returned (counts, stale projects, recent activity), which is useful. But it doesn't elaborate on return format, potential performance implications of aggregating all workspaces, or whether any state changes are possible (though 'summary' implies non-destructive). It adds some value beyond the tool name but lacks rich behavioral context.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose and a short usage phrase. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, avoids repetition of the tool name, and every clause adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple aggregation purpose, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know: when to use it and what it returns. It tells the agent the high-level nature and key output elements. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The schema is empty and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. The description compensates by clarifying the tool's output scope, so a 4 is warranted.

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 states a specific action ('Get a high-level summary') and resource ('all workspaces'), and further specifies the content ('counts by status, stale projects, recent activity'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces (which lists) and find_stale_workspaces (which specifically targets stale projects), as this tool provides an aggregated overview.

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 explicitly frames the intended use case: 'Designed for asking "where do things stand across all my projects?"' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over more specialized siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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