get_play_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose one important behavior: the result 'May be null if not generated yet.' But it does not explain why generation might not have happened, whether calling the tool triggers generation, or any caching/permission characteristics.

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 that states the action, the resource, and the key null behavior with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter getter, the description covers the essential resource and the nullable return. However, because there is no output schema, a bit more context about what the summary contains or when generation occurs would make it more 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%, and the schema already documents 'play' as 'Play title (exact or partial).' The description adds only examples, not additional semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('an AI-generated summary of a play'), with concrete examples like 'Hamlet' and 'The Tempest'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_scene_summary by scoping to play-level summaries.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose itself: use this when you need a summary of a play. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives like get_scene_summary or how it relates to get_monologue/list_plays.

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