get_document_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the output format (text tree) and pagination support, but does not clarify read-only status, performance implications, or file access requirements. Adequate but not rich.

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 only: the first states the core purpose and output format, the second adds pagination support. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. Highly concise and efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides only basic context. It does not describe the return format in detail or how this tool relates to similar siblings like 'get_tree_summary'. Adequate for simple use but incomplete for nuanced selection.

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 100%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds a pagination hint, but does not provide additional context like default values, ranges, or relationships beyond what the schema offers. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a text summary of document structure with node types, names, and dimensions in tree format, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_tree_summary', which likely serves a similar purpose, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions pagination support for large documents, implying when to use it (summarizing large structures), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'get_tree_summary' or 'parse_fig_file'.

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