text_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool can summarize or truncate, without explaining how summarization works (e.g., extractive vs. abstractive) or what 'truncate' means in terms of character cutoff. The schema's method parameter adds some detail, but the description adds little transparency beyond that.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words. While it could include more detail without harming conciseness, it is efficient for a simple tool and scores well on conciseness.

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 the tool has an output schema (which need not be described) and 3 parameters with clear schema descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about how the 'sentences' method selects sentences (e.g., based on importance, length limits) and whether summarization is context-aware. The schema covers param syntax, but the description does not fill behavioral gaps, making it moderately complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the tool works on text to a maximum length, which reinforces the schema's parameter descriptions but does not add significant new meaning. The description does not explain the difference between 'truncate' and 'sentences' methods beyond what the schema already provides.

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 does 'summarize or truncate text to a maximum length.' It specifies the verb (summarize/truncate) and the resource (text), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like count_words or calculate_text_similarity, which perform different text operations.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where summarization is preferred over truncation, nor does it refer to other tools that could be used instead. The agent receives no context for selecting this tool appropriately.

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