safe_direct_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions excluding diff and tails but does not confirm safety, side effects, or permissions. The 'safe_' prefix hints at read-only behavior but is not explicit.

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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and relevant, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing exclusions).

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?

The description omits what the summary includes (e.g., key events, status) and does not explain 'low-noise' concretely. Without an output schema, an agent lacks context on the tool's return value and may misuse it.

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 the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, meeting the baseline for high 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 returns a 'low-noise Direct session summary' and specifies it excludes diff content and verification stdout/stderr tails. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diff, safe_diff_summary, and get_task_stdout_tail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for low-noise summaries but does not state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for verbose output.

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