get_global_memory_archive_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses authorization constraints and the return structure (success, summary). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what happens if permissions are insufficient. Some behavioral context is added, but depth is limited.

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?

Description is brief (one sentence plus bullet-style Args/Returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and authorization note. The structure is clean, though the Args/Returns format is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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 has only one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and it is a simple retrieval, the description covers key points: purpose, access control, and return shape. However, it does not clarify what the 'summary' contains or when this tool is preferred over similar memory summary tools (e.g., get_global_memory_summary).

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?

Only one parameter, caller_agent_id. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section states it is required, but the input schema shows default null and no required constraint, creating a contradiction about requiredness. No explanation of the parameter's purpose or usage beyond 'caller agent ID'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves global archive summary information common to all projects. Verb '取得する' (get) and resource 'グローバルアーカイブのサマリー情報' are specific. However, no explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'get_global_memory_summary' or 'get_memory_archive_summary', though the name and 'global' + 'archive' combination help distinguish.

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?

Description explicitly restricts usage to Owner and Admin roles only, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over similar siblings or what scenarios are appropriate. The guidelines are basic but present.

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