summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. The aside '(rol summarizer)' hints that an LLM agent performs the work — implying nondeterminism, cost, and latency — but it never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates job state, how long it takes, or whether output is persisted.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing, and the mixed-language framing ('Un agente...') spends words on implementation detail instead of contract.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only source of information and it leaves the tool largely opaque. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, scope of the summary, or what 'focus' narrows without trial and error.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters, and it does not. It never explains what job_id identifies or what the optional 'focus' string does — arguably the most important thing to know about a summarization tool, since focus would steer the summary.

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 states a verb and resource ('resume la sesión de un job'), so the basic action is identifiable, but the phrasing 'Un agente (rol summarizer) resume...' describes the implementing mechanism rather than the tool's contract. It gives no way to tell it apart from siblings such as report, review, compact, or result, which all plausibly touch a job's session output.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. must the job be finished?), and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set (report, review, result, status). Usage is only implied by the verb 'resume'.

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