clonst_report_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses traits: it is idempotent (overwrites on re-call), metadata-only, and does not spawn reviewers or consume LLM quota. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each necessary and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage constraints, third adds behavioral traits. No redundant information.

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 simple schema (2 required params, no enums, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use, parameter nuances, and behavior. No gaps identified.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds critical context: for 'report_id', it distinguishes from 'thread_id'; for 'summary', it specifies 'exact text you gave the user verbatim'. This extra guidance enhances parameter understanding.

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 it seals a plain-language summary into a structured report file. It uses a specific verb ('seal') and resource ('structured review report file'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools ('clonst_ping', 'clonst_review') by specifying it is called after consensus to store the final summary.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call once after a consensus, and clarifies that 'report_id' is from clonst_review (not thread_id). Also mentions metadata-only nature (no reviewer spawn, no LLM quota), providing clear usage context.

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