get_global_memory_summary

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

The description discloses that the tool returns summary information (success, summary) and implies a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to mention any access requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which would be expected for a tool operating on shared global state.

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 brief and includes structured Args/Returns sections. However, it mixes Japanese and English, and the required flag conflict adds unnecessary noise. Overall, no wasted sentences, but minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the basic functionality and return shape. However, it omits context about safe invocation, concurrency, or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for a tool that accesses shared global memory.

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 description explains the parameter 'caller_agent_id' as the calling agent ID and marks it as required. However, the input schema shows a default null and allows null, making it optional. This contradiction between description and schema undermines clarity and could mislead an agent.

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 it retrieves the global memory summary common to all projects. The verb '取得する' and resource 'グローバルメモリのサマリー情報' are specific, and the context of being common across projects distinguishes it from per-project memory summary tools like get_memory_summary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The phrase '全プロジェクト共通' implies it is for global scope, but it does not contrast with alternatives such as get_memory_summary or global archive summaries, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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