get_run_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by specifying the exact scope of the response and excluding certain data types. This helps set expectations about output beyond the annotation, which fulfills the behavioral disclosure requirement.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds exclusions efficiently. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

The description covers the core purpose and exclusions, and the output schema covers return values. However, it misses critical context about the optional run_id parameter (e.g., what happens when null) and does not provide any usage guidance for obtaining a run_id or when to use this tool over siblings. These gaps leave it minimally 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?

The input schema has one parameter, run_id, with default null and no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention run_id at all, failing to explain its meaning, how to use it, or what null indicates. Since the schema provides no help, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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?

Description states the exact function with a specific verb+resource: "Return run summary counts only." It clearly distinguishes from siblings by listing exclusions (raw evidence, source path, source hash, result_detail, error_record), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (when only summary counts are needed) and explicitly states what it does not return, implying when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

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