get_launch_test_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses 'auto-paginated' (handling pagination automatically) and 'token-optimized' (efficient for token usage), which aren't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, using emojis and parentheses effectively to convey key points ('lightweight', 'statistics', 'auto-paginated', 'token-optimized'). It's appropriately sized and 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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete by adding behavioral context, but it lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings like 'get_launch_summary'. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with many parameters.

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%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'lightweight' relates to parameters like 'summaryOnly'), meeting the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('lightweight launch test summary with statistics'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_launch_details' or 'get_launch_summary' by emphasizing 'lightweight' and 'statistics', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 through terms like 'lightweight' and 'token-optimized', suggesting it's for quick summaries rather than detailed analysis, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name specific alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., 'get_launch_details' for more detailed info).

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