get_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns a summary but does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, how it behaves if the analysis is incomplete, or error conditions. It mentions 'completed' as a prerequisite but lacks details on why or what happens otherwise.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the useful content breakdown. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns, including hints about available sections. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema already provides a clear description for job_id ('The job ID from analyze_repo') with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('condensed summary of a completed Revibe analysis'), and it specifies the content (architecture pattern, language, file count, key modules, available sections). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_section, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate by name.

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?

It implies usage for completed analyses and lists what the summary shows, providing implicit context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_section or check_status, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'completed'.

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