probo_summary

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context by naming required OAuth scope (integrations:probo:read), governance policy, and cryptographic receipt sealing. It doesn't explicitly state the operation is non-destructive or describe error conditions, which leaves some transparency 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?

Two concise sentences deliver all necessary information with no extraneous content. The first sentence describes the function and output, the second covers prerequisites and unique behavioral traits.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the data points returned, access requirements, and the ProofLink sealing. It does not specify formatting or error behavior, but for an aggregate summary this is likely sufficient. A short note on receipt verification could have pushed it to a 5.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivial. The description correctly avoids unnecessary parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies as there is nothing to compensate.

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 tool 'Get Probo compliance aggregate summary' and enumerates the exact data returned: control pass/fail, risk levels, and task counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_controls and probo_risks, which likely provide detailed individual records.

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 implies use for a high-level aggregate overview, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling summary tools like compliance.audit_summary or itsm_dashboard_summary. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the use-case inference to the agent.

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