Summarize file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only summarization but never states that nothing is mutated, what happens on a missing or binary file, whether results are cached, or anything about error behavior, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the output fields with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the enumeration could have been used to also convey usage or path semantics.

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 is low-complexity (one param, no nested objects) and the description does enumerate the returned summary fields, which partially substitutes for the absent output schema. However, with no annotations and no path semantics, it leaves real gaps an agent would need filled.

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?

With 1 parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It says "one file" but gives no meaning to the path argument (relative vs absolute, project-root resolution, file-type expectations), so an agent gets no more than the parameter name implies.

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 states a specific verb ("Summarize") and resource ("one file") and enumerates what is summarized (language, line count, imports, exports, symbols). This distinguishes it somewhat from pure symbol-listing siblings like list_symbols or lsp_document_symbols, but it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase "for one file" hints at per-file scope versus workspace-level siblings, but this is left implicit rather than stated as a usage condition.

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