get_automation_summary

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description states 'Read-only, safe to retry' and explains the internal behavior: combining two API calls with details on each. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized: front-loaded purpose, then internal mechanics, usage context, safety note, parameter explanation, and return structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of output schema, sibling tools, and annotations, the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use, how it works, safety, parameter details, and return format. No gaps for an audit-focused tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for the 'days' parameter (lookback window, 1-365 range, default 30) and explains the return structure. However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 summarizes automation activity across Classic Automations and Customer Journeys, combining two API calls. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_automations and search_automation_campaigns by mentioning them as alternatives for raw data.

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 explicitly recommends this tool as the starting point for 'what's my automation stack doing right now?' during audits, and provides clear guidance on when to use siblings instead (list_automations for raw Classic list, search_automation_campaigns for raw recent feed).

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