Summarize Staged Thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'deterministic' (consistent with idempotency) and enumerates the return contents (summary, action candidates, risk notes), providing behavioral detail beyond the safety 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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and object. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the three return components (summary, action candidates, risk notes). Combined with good annotations and simple 2-param schema, it is adequately complete for a read-only tool, though it doesn't describe output formatting details beyond the response_format parameter.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both staged_chat_id and response_format. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning, only reuses 'staged chat ID' in the text, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 the verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resource: 'deterministic summary, action candidates, and risk notes for one staged chat ID.' It is distinct from sibling tools like stage_chat (which likely creates) and propose_homebase_note (which proposes content).

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 clear context: it operates on a 'staged chat ID' from stage_chat or search_context, implying it is used after those tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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