cigchat_flow_custom_events_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) and the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which are useful, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. This is minimal but non-tautological.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple GET request, but with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from explaining what the summary contains or how it differs from raw data tools. The lack of return value details leaves some ambiguity.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions present for 'range' and 'event_ns'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed given the high schema coverage, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gets a 'flow custom event summary' and provides the exact endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like flow_custom_events_data by the word 'summary', though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the required scope, but provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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