safe_direct_summary

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context about output content, explicitly stating what is omitted (diff, tails) and characterizing the output as 'low-noise.' This enriches understanding beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the essential information (what it returns, what it omits) efficiently, earning its place.

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 read-only summary tool with only two parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the output type (summary) and its key exclusions. It does not specify the exact return format, but given the low complexity and no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, sticking to the baseline for full 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 function: returning a low-noise Direct session summary with specific exclusions (diff content, verification tails). This distinguishes it from siblings like safe_diff_summary and safe_test_summary, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage context: it's for when a clean, concise summary is wanted without diff or verification tail noise. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the exclusions give a clear sense of scope.

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