Summarize assessment state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content of the summary, but discloses nothing about cost, caching, scope of the rollup, or whether it reads live state versus stored findings.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and the enumerated facets are tightly packed with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose explanation, and with zero parameters the call signature is unambiguous. The remaining gap is orientation within the toolset, which is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness one.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is nominally 100% but there is nothing to document; no parameter-level explanation is needed or missing.

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 (Summarize) and enumerates the resource facets covered: finding severity/status, targets, scope readiness, runtime metrics. This is clearer than a bare restatement of the title, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent aggregation/reporting siblings such as list_findings or generate_vulnerability_report.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a dashboard-style rollup to call before reporting or a duplicate of list_findings. The only implicit cue is the word 'Summarize'.

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