summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions the summary is 'AI-generated' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has latency, requires authentication, or may fail for missing IDs. This omission leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or performance characteristics.

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 with two short sentences plus an argument list. It is front-loaded, no redundant information, and every word adds value. Ideal length for a simple parameterized tool.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the core usage. It could benefit from noting that the domain must be supported (e.g., sessions or transcripts) and that the id should correspond to an existing entry. Nonetheless, it is nearly complete for a basic retrieval.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'domain' can be 'sessions, transcripts' and 'id' is a 'file/directory name or unique prefix'. However, these explanations are somewhat vague (e.g., what constitutes a 'unique prefix'?) and do not provide full parameter semantics.

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 retrieves an AI-generated summary for a domain entry, specifying domain and id as parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like read (full entry) and list_domain (listing entries) by its focus on summaries, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 does not indicate prerequisites, such as needing to list domains first or that the summary might be generated on demand. This lack of usage context reduces the tool's usability for selecting between siblings.

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