pretalx_review_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely restates the tool's function without explaining what 'review coverage' entails, how data is aggregated, or any side effects or limitations. For a read-only summarization tool, it does not confirm safety or describe output characteristics beyond the name.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be detailed, but the description leaves critical gaps: what exactly is 'review coverage'? Does the tool require an event? What happens if 'event' is null? Given the sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to decide whether this is the right tool or how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has a single parameter 'event' with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'for an event' but fails to clarify the parameter's format, meaning when null, or whether it's required. Since the schema does not provide descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Summarise') and identifies the exact resource ('review coverage and score trends') and scope ('for an event'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pretalx_get_submission_reviews (which retrieves raw reviews) and pretalx_summarise_submissions (which summarizes submissions, not review coverage).

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 for event-level analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as pretalx_get_submission_reviews or pretalx_summarise_submissions. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or not recommended.

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