get_review_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the output is grouped by severity and day and covers a 24-hour period, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, how the optional filters (zones, labels, cameras) interact, or any limitations such as timezone handling. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for the lack of return format details.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and result: 'Get a 24-hour summary...'. It contains no fluff or redundant information, every word earns its place, and it is easy to parse at a glance.

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 that the tool has four optional parameters, a fully self-describing schema, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple summary operation. It covers the core behavior (24-hour window, grouping by severity/day) without needing to explain return values. However, it does not clarify subtle points like the exact meaning of '24-hour' (rolling vs day) or how filters affect the summary, leaving minor gaps for an agent.

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 all four parameters (zones, labels, cameras, timezone) having descriptions like 'Comma-separated zones' and 'IANA timezone'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how filters combine (AND vs OR) or the impact of timezone on the 'day' grouping. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added by the description.

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's function: getting a 24-hour summary of the review queue, grouped by severity and day. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review (which fetches individual reviews) and get_review_by_id (which fetches a specific review), as well as summarize_reviews. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'review queue' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for obtaining an aggregated overview of the review queue over a day, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as summarize_reviews or get_review. There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context suggests a summary tool, but without explicit guidance, it remains at an implied level.

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