xcresult_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose return format, side effects (likely read-only), or permissions required. 'Quick summary' is vague—does it return counts, status, logs? The agent cannot predict the behavior beyond the basic purpose.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words—extremely concise. However, conciseness trades off with informativeness for other dimensions. It is front-loaded with the purpose but could incorporate more detail without becoming verbose.

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 (1 param, no output schema), the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., 'returns a text summary'). It lacks any indication of output format or content, leaving the agent guessing. Incomplete for reliable usage.

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 covers 100% parameter description, defining 'Absolute path to the .xcresult file'. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already explains the parameter.

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 action ('Get a quick summary') and the resource ('test results from an XCResult file'). It distinguishes from siblings like find_xcresults (which finds files) and xcresult_browse (which likely provides detailed browsing). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from xcresult_get_* tools, somewhat limiting clarity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for a high-level overview, while xcresult_browse is for detailed exploration. The agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this over sibling tools.

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