log_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered structurally. The description's only extra behavioral signal is 'cheap,' which usefully conveys low cost/latency and orients it as a lightweight probe. It adds little else about 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?

A tight one-line phrase with the leading qualifier 'Cheap orientation' front-loaded, so the key framing lands first. It is telegraphic but wastes no words.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the tool omits any guidance on the required path argument and no usage context, leaving it only minimally complete for calling correctly.

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 single 'path' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, adding no meaning about what path refers to (log file, directory, etc.). With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does 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?

States a specific resource (a flight log) and enumerates exactly what the summary returns: vehicle, firmware, duration, message counts, flight modes, max altitude, integrity. This lets an agent distinguish it from a deeper tool like analyze_log. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Cheap orientation' implies this is the fast first-pass tool to run before heavier siblings like analyze_log, but the description never says when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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