get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only status, authorization needs, or any limitations. The word 'overview' implies a read operation, but the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly state safety or side-effect behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded. It uses three short sentences to state the purpose and output, with no wasted words or redundant formatting.

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 no-parameter summary tool, the description adequately lists the main returned metrics. However, it omits the exact response structure or shape, which would improve completeness given there is no output schema.

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, so no parameter explanations are needed. Per baseline, this scores 4 since there is nothing to document.

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 identifies the tool as returning an overview of the tracked PostgreSQL CVE database, listing specific aggregate outputs (total unique CVEs, known exploits, yanked releases, active/EOL counts). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_cves or get_exploits, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for high-level summaries and that detailed data should use get_cves, get_exploits, etc.

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