get_adaptive_plan_summary

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It states the tool generates a summary and returns structured metrics, implying read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any side effects or requirements.

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?

Description is concise with two clear sections (Args and Returns). Every sentence adds value, but the Args description is prose rather than structured format; still no wasted 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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains input source and output nature ('structured summary with key metrics and region breakdown'), but lacks details on error handling or return format specifics.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds value by specifying that 'plan_data' is a dict from 'generate_adaptive_slicing_plan' or 'quick_adaptive_plan', giving context beyond the generic object type in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate a human-readable summary') and clearly identifies the resource ('adaptive slicing plan'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_adaptive_slicing_plan' by indicating this is a post-processing step that produces a readable output, not the plan itself.

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?

Description implicitly tells when to use by stating that 'plan_data' comes from two specific functions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among the many analysis siblings.

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