summarize_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavior: it filters findings without recomputing, suggesting a read-only operation. Yet it does not explicitly state side effects, error handling, or whether the original artifact is modified, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second documents the focus parameter. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, output schema present, no nested objects). The description covers the essential purpose and focus semantics. However, it does not compare with sibling tools like get_eda_findings or state prerequisites explicitly, leaving minor contextual gaps.

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 focus parameter is well explained with allowed values and its effect. run_id is implied as the identifier for the prior run_eda artifact, though not explicitly labeled. Given 0% schema coverage, this explanation partially compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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?

Clearly states the action (re-summarize) and the resource (prior run_eda artifact), with focus categories adding specificity. It distinguishes from run_eda by using 'prior', but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_eda_findings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Implies when to use it: after a prior run_eda artifact exists. The focus parameter (quality, bias, modeling, all) suggests intended use cases, and 'without recomputing' indicates a lightweight operation. However, there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references.

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