scl_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states this is a read/summary operation which implies non-destructive behavior, and lists the output components. However, it doesn't disclose the output format or any side effects, though the presence of an output schema partially mitigates this for return value clarity.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first names the scope precisely; the second gives actionable entry-point guidance. Text is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

For a summary tool with a single parameter and an output schema, this is well-specified. The description defines the entry-point use case and scopes the output. The output schema covers return structure, so the description need not. Could mention the file-type handling explicitly (scd/icd/cid are referenced, not the header format), but overall adequate.

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 0% and there is only one parameter ('path'). The description doesn't elaborate on what path should be, but with a single clearly-named parameter this is less critical. The description conveys the accepted file extensions (.scd/.icd/.cid), which adds value, but no further path semantics are given.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Summarise an SCL file' with a specific scope (header, substation topology, IED inventory counts). Distinguished from siblings like scl_get_ied and scl_list_ieds by being a summary-level overview rather than a targeted detail query.

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?

Excellent guidance: 'Start here when handed an unfamiliar .scd/.icd/.cid file' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool as the entry point, clearly separating it from the more granular sibling tools (scl_list_datasets, scl_get_ied, etc.) that would follow.

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