get_daily_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it automatically detects the authenticated user, fetches repositories based on user roles, filters commits by date and author, groups by repository, and returns a formatted summary. It also specifies the return structure. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond token use.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a numbered list detailing steps, followed by return format and an example. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the numbered list is detailed but slightly verbose), and the example adds clarity but extends length.

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 complexity (multiple internal steps) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It thoroughly explains the process, return format, and provides an example, compensating for the lack of annotations. No additional information is needed for effective use by an AI agent.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's internal logic (e.g., steps like detecting user and filtering commits), which goes beyond the empty schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a summary of today's commits authored by the authenticated GitHub user.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('summary of today's commits'), and scope ('authored by the authenticated GitHub user'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_repo_commits_today' and 'list_repositories' by focusing on summarization and user-specific filtering.

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 context by detailing the steps involved (e.g., detecting the authenticated user, fetching repositories, filtering commits), which suggests it's for daily personal summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_repo_commits_today' or 'list_repositories', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond authentication.

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