pleach_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses caching per branch head, the cost implications of a cache miss (model calls), and the capability to handle any transcript size, which are valuable behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with behavioral/cost details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, caching behavior, cost, and scale, which is quite complete. It could mention what the output looks like or any prerequisites, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer the return value.

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 100%, so all parameters are explained in the schema. The description adds context about caching and cost that relates to the no_cache parameter, but it does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function with a specific verb ('Summarize') and defines the resource as a branch's attempt outcomes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pleach_log (raw log) and pleach_status (current state) by focusing on attempted, worked, failed, and decided aspects.

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 implies usage for obtaining a concise summary of branch activity, and notes it works at any transcript size, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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