ktalk_get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool retrieves a summary, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid recording_key), prerequisites, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient detail.

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 two sentences with a short argument list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, required 1) and the existence of an output schema (reducing need for return value description), the description covers the essentials. However, it does not mention error cases or preconditions (e.g., recording must exist). It is nearly complete for a straightforward get operation, but a small gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains recording_key as 'Recording key/identifier (required)' and format as 'Output format — raw (JSON) or markdown (structured summary)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default. This enables correct parameter usage, especially the format enumeration.

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 'Get full summary of a KTalk recording' and specifies the components (short summary, protocol, transcription). It uses specific verbs and resources, and the inclusion of 'full summary' distinguishes it from siblings like ktalk_get_transcript (only transcript) and ktalk_get_summary_by_type (potentially a different kind of summary).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or specify scenarios where this is preferred over ktalk_get_transcript, ktalk_get_recording, or ktalk_get_summary_by_type. The purpose is clear, but the lack of usage notes limits the agent's ability to choose correctly without trial and error.

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