Get Adaptation Summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reports escalation status, resolution, max tier, total interventions, and resolution counts. It does not contradict the annotation and provides a useful picture of the tool's output.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and the second enumerates the specific outputs. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists the main returned values and the domain. It could go slightly deeper on how 'fossilization interventions' are defined or how results are grouped, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns a summary') and identifies the exact resource ('fossilization interventions') plus the key metrics it covers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling summary tools like session summaries or generated-content summaries.

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 when the tool is relevant—whenever fossilization intervention status is needed—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling summary tools, some routing guidance would improve clarity.

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