Summarize an Onshape document

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior by stating it returns the full workspace/tab tree, not just one slice. It does not discuss response size or rate limits, but for a read-only aggregate tool those are minor gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the return content and the value proposition with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 fully documented parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what will be returned (metadata, workspaces, elements, ids) and when to use it. Nothing necessary for invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema's doc description already gives the URL format and required semantics. The tool description only repeats that the tool collects ids; it adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('summarize'), resource ('document'), and the exact payload: metadata plus every workspace and the elements inside each. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_document, get_workspaces, and get_elements, which cover only a slice of that aggregate.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'the fastest way to orient in an unfamiliar document and collect the ids other tools need.' It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use it, 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.