summary.delta

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

The description explicitly states that the tool does NOT store anything automatically, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose other traits like whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is read-only, or what happens if no stored summary exists.

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 and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and key constraint. However, the first sentence is somewhat dense and could be slightly restructured for easier parsing.

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 tool has 6 parameters with only 50% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves open questions about return format, error cases (e.g., missing stored summary), and parameter dependencies. It is moderately complete but could benefit from more guidance.

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 50%, meaning three parameters have descriptions (project_id, auto_discover, include_files). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for those parameters and none for the undocumented ones (include_kb, project_root, include_memory). The description does not explain parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 verb ('Generate') and the resource ('delta project knowledge summary'), and explains the mechanism ('comparing current authoritative project state against last stored summary'). It distinguishes itself from a sibling like summary.project by focusing on change-only output. However, it could be more explicit about the verb phrase being 'generate delta'.

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 implies when to use this tool (to get a change-only summary without storage), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites or the last stored summary needing to exist.

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