summarize_evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool produces both a summary and a Markdown view, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not elaborate on what 'bounded' means, how missing IDs are handled, or any other runtime behavior, so additional context is limited.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with a complex request object and output schema. It is not appropriately sized because it omits critical information, making it more of an under-specification than a concise, informative description.

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 high complexity (many parameters, output schema, and many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'bounded canonical proof summary' is, what inputs are required, or what the Markdown view contains. The annotations provide some safety context, but the overall description does not adequately complete the picture.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The only parameter is 'request' which contains many fields (run_ids, finding_ids, etc.), but the description gives no hints about how to populate or interpret these fields, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the verb 'Render' with a resource ('one bounded canonical proof summary and its Markdown view'), but the resource is vague jargon. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_evidence or compare_run_sets, which also deal with evidence summaries or comparisons.

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 provides no context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing this tool from the long sibling list.

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