Summarize runtime surfaces

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context: the 'active-client' prerequisite, cost=medium, phase=observe, and 'Produces: operation-receipt'. It also gives a failure-recovery pointer. It stops short of describing the receipt's contents or pagination, but it meaningfully exceeds the 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?

Front-loads the purpose and enumerates surfaces before pivoting to compact key-value metadata. Slightly telegraphic and crowded, but every line carries information and nothing is redundant filler.

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?

Covers purpose, signature, phase, cost, prerequisite, output artifact, safety, and failure guidance for a read-only count tool with full schema coverage and annotations. Only the return shape (the 'operation-receipt' contents) is left implicit, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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% and the single optional threadContext parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the signature ('{ threadContext: number? }'), adding no syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (runtime surfaces), then enumerates exactly what it counts: scripts/modules/remotes/actors/functions/tables/threads. This distinguishes it from generic list tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with the close sibling summarize-hidden-surfaces.

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?

Provides operational context ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') that implies when the tool applies, but never says when to prefer it over alternatives like summarize-hidden-surfaces, get-instance-counts, or the many list-* siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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