generate-summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return structure with a detailed list of expected outputs, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or describe behavior when input parameters are omitted or both provided. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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-organized with clear sections and is front-loaded with the purpose. It includes an example and a concise return list, though there is some redundancy between the 'When to use' and 'Perfect for' sections, making it slightly longer than necessary.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates all return values, covering grammar name, rule counts, imports, top rules, issue summary, health assessment, and complexity indicators. It also provides usage context and an example, making it adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function and expected output.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example using 'from_file', but does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., whether they are alternatives or additive) or what occurs if none are provided.

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 'Generate a concise summary of grammar structure and health metrics,' which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself as a summary tool rather than a detailed analysis or validation tool, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'grammar-metrics'.

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 a dedicated 'When to use' section listing quick health checks, progress tracking, overview reports, and grammar comparisons. It also adds a 'Perfect for' line with status reports and tracking changes, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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