list_chapter_summaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the function and offers a parameter tip, without explaining pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or any side effects. The agent gets little insight into how the tool actually behaves.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second offers a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks guidance on using the filter parameters and what 'generated' implies. It is sufficient for a simple call but incomplete for a full understanding of the tool's capabilities, especially given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions page_size with a specific value recommendation, but does not explain the meaning of query, volume_id, or project_id. This is inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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 'List generated chapter summaries' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (generated chapter summaries), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_chapters or list_long_term_summaries. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Use page_size=50 to read recent chapter-summary context before writing.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before writing) and how to configure it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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