summarize_speeches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic behavior (generating a summary) and parameter effects (mode for detail, focus for narrowing), but it does not disclose potential costs, latency, or side effects. It also leaves the return format unstated, which is a notable gap for a generation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and flows logically from the main purpose to usage details. This is a model of efficient tool documentation.

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?

The description plus schema covers the purpose and parameters well. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify the format of the returned summary, which creates ambiguity. Also, it omits mention of the 200-item limit (covered in schema), but the missing output format is a real gap for a tool that generates a result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the items parameter can be populated directly from search_speeches output (a key integration detail) and by giving a natural-language explanation of mode and focus that mirrors but enriches the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it generates a summary from a list of speeches ('発言一覧を入力として要約を生成します') and specifies the integration path with search_speeches. This is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'summarize_meeting', so it misses the top score.

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 gives clear context by stating that the output of search_speeches can be passed directly as input, effectively telling the agent when to use this tool (after a search). It also explains the role of mode and focus, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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