summarize_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'complete summary' entails in terms of output format. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool that likely interacts with test systems.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states what the tool does, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the included details for better readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex test run data. It mentions what's included in the summary but doesn't explain the return format, potential errors, or how to interpret results like 'vital count' or 'error status'. For a tool in a testing context with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'path' documented as 'Full path to the test run directory'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a complete summary of a RAMP test run'), including what information is included (metadata, final result, vital count, error status). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_test_result' or 'get_test_vitals', but the scope is well-defined.

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 'get_test_result' or 'get_test_vitals' from the sibling list. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and description alone.

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