summarize_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what 'spoken delivery' implies, potential side effects, or any limitations. The description is purely functional and lacks behavioral depth.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action ('Summarize latest results') and succinctly lists the result categories. Every word earns its place, exemplifying strong conciseness.

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 one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description does not explain the purpose of case_name or any usage context. An output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the tool's purpose relative to case inputs and the meaning of 'spoken delivery' remain unclear, making the description inadequate for full contextual understanding.

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 description does not mention the parameter case_name, and schema coverage is 0%. It provides no explanation of how the parameter is used or what values it accepts beyond the schema's bare type definition. The description adds zero semantic value for the parameter.

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 states the tool summarizes latest results, specifying the content (times, parameters, residuals) and the intended use case (spoken delivery). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like get_logs or compare_to_analytical, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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