summarize_source

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes the output but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). Since it only states what it returns, it lacks transparency about potential impacts or requirements.

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 structured as a docstring with a brief summary and an Args section. It is clear and to the point, though slightly verbose with the Args format. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it efficient.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (statistics) and parameter semantics. It covers what the user needs to know to call the tool, though it could mention potential errors or response format.

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 0% description coverage, so the description's explanation of the parameter adds essential meaning. It clarifies that 'source' accepts a string or null, and that null returns data for all sources. This goes beyond the raw schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it returns indexing statistics for sources, listing specific metrics like indexed documents, total chunks, file type breakdown, and most recent timestamp. While it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_document (retrieves a single document) and list_sources (just lists names), it does not explicitly contrast itself, missing the highest bar for differentiation.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for retrieving source statistics, but it does not mention exclusions (e.g., when to use get_document instead) nor suggest context.

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