boss_chat_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions generating summaries and suggestions but omits key traits: whether it is read-only, modifies chat state, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The parameter 'security_id' implies targeting a friend, but behavior beyond that is unclear.

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?

Single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant information. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing details: it does not explain what constitutes 'chat history' (full history or limited scope), the format or structure of the summary, or the nature of 'next step suggestions.' With no output schema, this information would be useful.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's field description ('好友的 security_id'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema covers all needed details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates structured summaries and next step suggestions from chat history. It uses specific verbs ('generate') and resource ('summary from chat history'), distinguishing it from siblings like boss_chat (sending messages) and boss_ai_chat_coach (coaching).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_chatmsg or boss_ai_reply. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which alternative to choose.

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