conversation_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at read-only behavior via 'Get' and discloses that the payload is a compact summary rather than full history, but says nothing about permissions, cost, truncation of long conversations, or behavior on a missing UUID.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The 'Args:' block is boilerplate that largely restates the schema, but it is short enough not to bloat the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values and it correctly signals what the payload contains. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, a 1-parameter tool that competes with four siblings is only minimally specified.

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 0%, so the description is the only source for the single parameter, and it does clarify that the UUID identifies a conversation. Beyond that identifier semantics, it adds nothing (no format, sourcing, or error behavior for an invalid UUID).

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('overview of a conversation') and enumerates the returned content (stats, first and last human message), which implicitly separates it from get_conversation_messages. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the scope is clear enough to select it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of get_conversation_messages, browse_conversations, or search_history. The agent must infer from the word 'summary' that this is the cheap first-look option.

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