get_standards_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dictionary with document summaries, which is helpful, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid categories. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentences about returns and parameters are useful but could be slightly more streamlined. There's minimal waste, though the mention of 'ctx' (not in schema) adds minor confusion.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a reasonably complete job. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks behavioral context (like safety or limitations) and usage guidelines relative to siblings, which are important for a tool in this context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter 'category' with example values (agents, mcp, infrastructure), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what these categories represent or if there are other valid values, preventing a perfect score. The 'ctx' parameter mentioned in the description isn't in the schema, which is confusing but doesn't severely impact the score since the schema defines the actual parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get a summary of all standards in a category' and specifies it returns 'titles and descriptions of all documents in the specified category for quick reference.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_standards_categories' or 'search_standards', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the category parameter values (agents, mcp, infrastructure), but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over 'list_standards_categories' (which might list categories) or 'search_standards' (which might search within standards). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases.

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