summarize_fieldwork_status

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only', which is an important behavioral safety signal, and 'high-level' indicates an aggregated view rather than raw data. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose output format, aggregation logic, or profile dependency.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation type and scope, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, a broad summary tool covering four entity types needs more detail about what the returned summary contains, what 'status' means, and whether the optional profile changes the scope. The description is too thin for an agent to confidently anticipate the tool's output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single 'profile' parameter is already self-explanatory from the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how the profile affects the summary, so it sits at the baseline.

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 names a specific operation (summarize), a distinguishing scope (fieldwork), and enumerates the entities covered: questionnaires, assignments, interviews, and users. It clearly distinguishes itself from more targeted sibling summaries like summarize_interviewer_activity, though 'status' remains somewhat general.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or complementary tools. The word 'high-level' hints at an overview use case, but no concrete selection criteria are given.

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