get_session_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output content categories but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, permission requirements, pagination/limits, or what 'indexed traffic' excludes.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the summary content is front-loaded. It is slightly fragmentary but still appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully described, and the description identifies the main aggregate categories. However, with no annotations and an undocumented top parameter, it is only minimally complete for correct invocation.

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 50%: session_id is documented in the schema, but the top parameter has only a default and min/max constraints. The description does not explain what top controls or how session_id scopes the summary.

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 that the tool produces aggregate counts by host/method/status, recent errors, and total sizes for indexed traffic. That distinguishes it from request-level siblings like list_requests and get_request, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

It implies the tool is for summarized/indexed traffic rather than individual request retrieval, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as search_traffic or list_requests.

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