diff_partitions_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Summarize' implies a read-only operation, and 'metadata side' hints that it does not touch data content. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is safe, reversible, or what side effects exist, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter tool. It avoids verbosity but could be slightly more structured by adding a clear scope statement. Still, it is compact and focused.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about the intended use case, what 'metadata side' precisely includes, and how it differs from related tools. This makes it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter formats or meanings, and the schema already confirms an empty input. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and names the resources ('partitions and part files'), making the core function clear. The qualifier '(metadata side)' adds scope but is somewhat ambiguous and does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like index_summary or corpus_status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios, leaving the agent without context on how it fits among siblings.

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