read_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 does communicate that this is a read operation, that data is downsampled to max_points, and that keys accept multiple formats. However, it does not describe time-range handling, default behavior, or error cases like invalid keys.

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 minimal and well-structured, front-loading the core behavior in the first sentence and adding only necessary key-format detail in the second. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still under-specifies several important parameters: case_path, start, and end are not semantically explained. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is not enough for an agent to confidently construct a correct call.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explains the keys format and ties max_points to downsampling, but case_path, start, and end are left entirely to inference from their names and types.

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 a specific action and resource: reading summary vectors as time series with downsampling. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like list_summary_vectors, compare_summaries, or plot_summary, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use read_summary versus alternatives such as field_summary, well_summary, or plot_summary. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or routing conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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