wick_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The term 'summary' implies a read-only aggregate, but the description does not disclose what data is included, how it is computed, or whether the operation might be expensive. It also doesn't indicate what happens if no sessions exist or what output shape to expect.

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 concise sentence of seven words: 'All-time usage summary across every Wick session.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler, redundant phrases, or irrelevant details. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description remains vague about what the summary includes. It mentions 'usage' and 'every Wick session' but does not specify metrics (e.g., hours, events, categories) or whether the output is a single number, a breakdown, or a report. This is a notable gap for a tool that could benefit from a sentence clarifying its output structure.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the scoring guidelines, a description with no parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the tool as an 'All-time usage summary across every Wick session,' indicating it aggregates usage data from all sessions. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' but the noun phrase 'summary' implies a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like wick_status or wick_track by emphasizing 'all-time' and 'every session.'

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wick_status or wick_export. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify whether wick_summary is the right choice for checking current status versus a historical overview.

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