summary_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool runs an OPM CLI command; it does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, how output is produced, or what the returned data represents. The word 'reader' weakly implies non-mutating behavior, but that is not explicit.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated first. It is genuinely concise, though the brevity sacrifices useful detail that would make the tool more tractable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be exhaustively described, but the tool still lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and sibling differentiation. Given the large sibling set and zero schema description coverage, this is too incomplete for confident tool selection and invocation.

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, but it only hints at case_path via 'on a case.' The keys parameter is entirely unexplained: its format, purpose, relation to summary selection, and behavior when null are not described. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific action: 'Run the OPM summary CLI on a case,' which identifies the verb, resource, and basic mechanism. The parenthetical 'alternative summary reader' hints at differentiation, but it does not name the sibling tool it is an alternative to, so some ambiguity remains among the many summary-related siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'alternative summary reader' vaguely implies a choice over another tool, but no sibling is named and no conditions are provided, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and read_summary, field_summary, well_summary, or other summary tools.

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