get_rrweb_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does not return (full rrweb) and what it does return (count, duration, type distribution). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe, or describe any side effects. The behavioral info is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 brief lines covering key aspects in both Chinese and English. Every sentence provides essential information with no waste. Front-loaded: the main purpose is stated first.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the summary contents (count, duration, type distribution) and clarifies that it's not the full rrweb. This is nearly complete for the use case.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema; it only elaborates on the return value. Thus, no extra value added for 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 it returns a DOM trace summary with count, duration, and type distribution. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the full rrweb tool by noting '不回完整 rrweb（太大）' (no full rrweb, too large), which differentiates it from the sibling get_rrweb_events.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a summary rather than the full rrweb data. It states the full rrweb is too large, suggesting this is for quick overviews. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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