generate_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('generate a summary') but doesn't explain how the summary is produced (e.g., algorithm, length constraints beyond maxSentences), what happens if the note doesn't exist, or the output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a single sentence: 'Generate a summary of note content.' It wastes no words and directly communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by defining the tool's purpose.

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 complexity of a summary generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how summaries are generated, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'path' and 'maxSentences' clearly. The description doesn't elaborate on usage examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 purpose: 'Generate a summary of note content.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('summary of note content'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_keywords' or 'analyze_note_relationships' that might also process note content, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing note, or compare it to siblings like 'extract_keywords' for different analysis types. Without any context on usage scenarios or exclusions, the agent must infer this from the tool name alone.

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