summarize_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key dependency (GenAI configuration) and indicates the operation is powered by an external provider, implying potential latency or cost. It does not detail side effects or rate limits, but for a read-only summarize action, the disclosure is adequate.

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 only two sentences—the first states the core action and scope, the second gives a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the time-range semantics and the GenAI requirement. It could explicitly state what the summary output is (though the output schema exists) or address scenarios where GenAI is not configured, but these are minor gaps.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (start/end Unix timestamps). The description adds that they define a 'time range' for summarization, but this is a minor reinforcement rather than new information beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 action ('summarize review items'), resource ('review items in a time range'), and method ('Frigate's GenAI provider'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_summary, which likely provides a count or statistical summary rather than an AI-generated narrative.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to summarize reviews with GenAI) and explicitly states the prerequisite that GenAI must be configured. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as get_review_summary or get_review, leaving some ambiguity.

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