sprut_get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention any permission requirements, rate limits, or freshness/caching behavior. It adds content categories but no behavioral traits beyond what the verb suggests.

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 definition is a single, efficiently worded sentence. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a parenthetical list of contents, with no wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and a present output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand what data the summary provides. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, but for a parameterless getter with a documented return shape, this is a minor omission.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. The empty schema is fully documented, and no parameter meaning is needed.

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 verb (Get) and resource (comprehensive smart home dashboard summary), then enumerates the components (hub info, users, room counts, device breakdown, extensions, scenarios). This clearly differentiates it from individual getter/list siblings by scope and aggregation, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that return the same underlying data piecemeal (e.g., sprut_get_hub_info, sprut_list_rooms). The description only lists what the summary contains, leaving the agent to infer that it is for a dashboard overview.

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