fusion_document_info

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about what is reported (units, counts, save state, active component) but discloses no additional behavioral traits like side effects or performance characteristics. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Summarize the active document') and then lists the information items. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description must communicate what the tool returns, and it does enumerate the key data points. It is slightly vague about the level of detail and about whether counts are recursive across the whole document, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter summary 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so the description carries no burden of explaining parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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: 'Summarize the active document' and enumerates the specific contents (units, counts of bodies/components/sketches/parameters, save state, active component). It is distinct from the list tools and getters, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'fusion_summary'.

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 usage is implied by the verb 'Summarize' – an agent would call this for a high-level overview. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like fusion_list_bodies or fusion_summary, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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