read_architect_page_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (lightweight fields, ~500-char preview cap) and implies a read-only, cheap operation, but says nothing about permissions, freshness/staleness of the index, or rate limits. Adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the scope of the response is front-loaded and the usage hint second, which is the right ordering for a decision-oriented tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return fields and the intended decision context, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error behavior for unindexed URLs and what 'section' means in the payload.

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% and the single url parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The exact URL of the page.' The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('lightweight summary of an indexed page') and enumerates the exact payload (title, section, word count, headings, ~500-char preview). It contrasts cleanly with the sibling read_architect_page, which returns full content, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit decision rule: use this to understand a page before deciding to read the full content, which implicitly routes to read_architect_page for the full read. It does not name the alternative tool directly or mention when-not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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