Get Review summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the ownership constraint but does not disclose return format or behavior on missing/unauthorized sessions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the core output concept (section and action totals). It lacks details on return structure or edge cases, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations provided.

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 only specifies a required session_id of type UUID, giving no semantic meaning. The description adds that the session must be an 'owned review session,' which provides useful context beyond the raw type. Though it doesn't explicitly name session_id, the reference is clear.

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 specifies the tool's function: retrieving section and action totals for an owned review session. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'section and action totals' are precise, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review or list_reviews which serve different purposes.

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 when summary totals for a review session are needed, but it does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not conditions. The word 'owned' offers some context on applicable sessions, but there is no comparison with other review-related tools.

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