get_section_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context: it returns metadata 'without fetching content', clarifying this is a lightweight inspection call. It stops short of noting cost/latency traits or whether the summary is cached/version-dependent, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload and the field list, then the usage directive. The long field enumeration slightly bloats the first sentence and the 'v1.38+' version tag is minor clutter, but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what fields are returned. Annotations cover safety and the usage sentence covers the decision path. Only a note on return edge cases (e.g., missing sections) is absent, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (repo, section_id) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the v1.147+ anchor behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond pointing back to the section concept, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (full indexed metadata for one section), enumerates the concrete fields returned, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_section by noting it works 'without fetching content'. An agent can tell it apart from get_section_summaries/describe_section without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it ('to inspect role/tags before deciding whether to read the content') and names the alternative tool (get_section) with the condition that selects it. The when/when-not framing is complete.

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