get_container_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Retrieves'), has performance characteristics ('fast queries', 'better response times'), and specifies what it returns ('Container metadata only'). However, it doesn't mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-like sections (Usage, Performance, Returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, performance, and return scope, though it could benefit from mentioning error cases or prerequisites.

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 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (a single 'container_id' parameter). The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter structure adequately, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Retrieves container metadata without content') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_container' and 'get_container_contents_only' by emphasizing it's for 'fast queries' and 'without performance impact'. It explicitly differentiates from content-focused tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Quick container information lookup without performance impact') and when not to use it ('Avoids loading large content lists'), with clear alternatives implied by distinguishing it from content-retrieval siblings. The 'Usage' section reinforces this context.

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