summarize_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: bounded scanning (at most 16 MiB), bounded output (at most 32 KiB), and the crucial caveat that counts apply only to that window. It does not cover permissions, cost, or whether results are cached, but the truncation semantics are unusually well surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place, with the core capability front-loaded and the limiting/caveat facts following. No filler or repetition.

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 bounded-summary tool with an output schema present (so return shape needn't be explained), the description covers scope, limits, caveats, and the parameter's usage. Minor gap: it never clarifies what a 'fault' or 'coverage' entry contains, though the output schema likely covers this.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'session' parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Select a session explicitly when more than one device is in use' explains the parameter's purpose and when to supply it, though it doesn't describe the accepted identifier format.

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+resource ('compact recorded evidence') and enumerates the content it summarizes (recent faults, counts, firmware, data coverage). It distinguishes itself from query_logs and get_crash by being a compaction/summary rather than a retrieval of individual records, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: 'Check scan/storage coverage before drawing conclusions; silence is not health' and 'Select a session explicitly when more than one device is in use.' It does not name alternative tools or state when-not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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