Hermes toolkit info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'without reading secrets' scoping constraint, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what the return output looks like or whether the summary reflects current vs. on-disk state, though an output schema exists. The non-secret guarantee is genuinely useful beyond annotations.

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, dense sentence that enumerates the full scope of what's summarized and includes the critical safety qualifier 'without reading secrets'. No filler words, no redundancy, front-loaded with the action verb. Every element 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?

Given the tool is a read-only info/summary aggregator with an output schema present and all parameters optional with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers scope and the security constraint. It could benefit from noting whether this touches the network or reflects live state, but for an info summarizer the description is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema with their constraints (home, profile, toolkit_root each with allowed-root path restrictions). The description adds one meaningful behavioral detail: the summary spans agents, skills, eval harness paths, suites, helper scripts, and README metadata. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Summarize') and enumerates the exact resources covered (agents, skills, eval harness paths, suites, helper scripts, README metadata), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools. It's not a bare tautology. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against closely-related siblings like hermes_skills_list or hermes_config_summary, and the dashboard-like aggregate nature isn't contrasted with the more targeted list tools.

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 clearly scopes what it covers but provides no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. Context signals show all 3 parameters optional and readOnlyHint=true, implying a safe summary view, but there's no explicit 'use this instead of hermes_skills_list when...' guidance. The 'without reading secrets' clause is a useful safety qualifier but not a usage context for agent decision-making.

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