summary_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description supplies behavioral info: full vs incremental updates and environment variable requirements. However, it does not disclose whether updates override existing summaries, auth details, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance and prerequisites. No superfluous information is present.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers behavior and prerequisites. It could mention integration with sibling tools like summary_search, but the existing detail is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema. The tool description adds minor context (force triggers full regeneration, projectPath optional) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema, meeting the baseline score.

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 generates or updates Chinese summaries for exported symbols, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like summary_search and summary_status, which have 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 provides clear context: first run performs full generation, subsequent runs are incremental updates, and it requires LLM API configuration. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the context is adequate for decision-making.

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