get_trip_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the temporal context ('since the server started'), which is valuable behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on return structure, but that is covered by the output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element ('rolling totals', 'since server started', the list of data types) earns its place, making it instantly scannable.

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 that the tool takes no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It defines the time window and the content of the summary, leaving the return format to the schema. An agent can call it without ambiguity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly avoids mentioning any parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to add.

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'), a resource (trip summary), and the scope ('rolling totals since the server started'), while enumerating the data categories (distance, time, speeds, fuel, events). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_fuel_status or get_truck_state, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 conveys the use case (retrieving overall trip aggregates) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the selection to inference.

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