Condense long-form content into a concise summary for a CreatorOS project. Supply the project ID and content, and choose a tone for tailored results.
Summarize existing content for a CreatorOS project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tone | No | Professional | |
| content | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'summarize' and gives no information about side effects, whether the original content is modified, what the output looks like, or any permissions or limitations.
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. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it is terse to the point of under-specification in other dimensions.
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?
With no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It does not explain what 'summarize' produces, how tone affects the result, or what content/project_id mean beyond their names. The output schema exists, but input semantics are largely unaddressed.
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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (project_id, content, tone). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.
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 action ('Summarize') and the resource ('existing content for a CreatorOS project'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the generate_* siblings by focusing on existing content, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives like rewrite_content or expand_content.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus rewrite_content, expand_content, or humanize_content. It only states the general action, with no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.