summarize_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-powered' which hints at non-deterministic output, but doesn't address critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of AI-powered summarization, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of summary to expect, length considerations, quality limitations, or how the AI aspect affects results. The minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective tool use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (documentId and language), the description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what documentId refers to, what format it should be in, or what the optional language parameter controls. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Generate an AI-powered summary') and the resource ('of a document'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'smart_status' that might also provide document insights, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_document' for full content or 'smart_status' for analysis), there's no indication of when summarization is preferred over other document operations.

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