summarize_content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it mentions two summarization modes (extractive and abstractive) and the backend (Ollama/sampling). No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: first sentence states when to use, second defines modes, third provides an example. It is front-loaded with usage guidance and contains no unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description does not enumerate return values, but it sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and behavior. It mentions 'condensed version' and supports extraction/abstractive modes. Agents can infer what they get back. Slight gap: no mention of output format, but it's acceptable for this tool.

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% as both parameters (text, options) have descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that 'text' typically comes from extract_text/extract_content and provides an example showing 'options' properties (summaryLength, summaryType). This goes beyond the schema's minimal 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: condensing text content. It specifies the input source (extract_text/extract_content) and use cases (briefings, comparison tables, LLM context reduction). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_text (which extracts but doesn't summarize) and analyze_content (which might analyze but not condense).

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 explicitly advises using this tool when text content is available and a condensed version is needed. It provides concrete examples of when to use it (e.g., briefings, comparison tables). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives besides the implicit reference to extract_text/extract_content.

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