qc_get_quality_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has any side effects, though the 'get' nature suggests it is safe. More transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise, well-structured, and free of fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, the included metrics, and the default behavior in a few sentences.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the output content (statistical summary with specific breakdowns). It does not specify the exact output format or error conditions, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema already includes descriptions for both parameters ('desde' and 'hasta'), and the tool description adds the default behavior (current month) and clarifies the date range concept. This supplements the schema adequately.

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 the tool's function: it analyzes QualityControl sheets and generates a statistical summary. It enumerates specific metrics (species/variety breakdown, average brix, size distribution, and common defects) and mentions the default date range, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like qc_get_inspections.

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?

The description explains that a date range is optional and defaults to the current month, providing practical guidance on when to call the tool. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the summary nature is evident.

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