build_summary_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that it evenly excerpts documents and returns them at once, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't mention potential edge cases or how errors are handled. Given the annotations cover the key side-effect concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the main action and constraint, with zero filler. It effectively communicates purpose and usage in minimal space.

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 has an output schema, so return format is not the description's burden. The description covers the core purpose and when to use it, and the parameters are straightforward. It doesn't get into edge cases, but for a read-only tool with simple inputs, the description is sufficiently 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% — both parameters (paths and char_budget) already have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is correct when the schema already documents parameters fully.

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 uses specific verbs ('발췌해' / excerpt, '돌려줍니다' / returns) with a clear resource (multiple documents) and a constraint (within a character budget). It also states it's for summarizing multiple documents together, which differentiates it from single-document tools like read_document. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to reinforce that distinction.

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 explicitly says '여러 문서를 묶어 요약할 때 씁니다' (use when summarizing multiple documents together), providing a clear condition for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the given condition covers the primary use case effectively.

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