Summarize provided content or file references, optionally focusing on a specific area, to quickly extract key information for engineering tasks.
Summarize content or file references; when files is provided it is used instead of content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | Files | |
| focus | No | Focus | |
| model | No | Model | |
| content | No | Content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral nuance: files is used instead of content when both are provided. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when neither input is supplied, or what the output format is. The precedence disclosure makes it more than a tautology but leaves significant behavior unexplained.
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?
One sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant behavior is placed in the second clause. Minor pronoun ambiguity in 'it is used instead of content' and the lack of any parameter details prevent a perfect score, but the description is efficiently compact.
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, no output schema, and four optional parameters, critical call-time questions are left unanswered: what happens if both content and files are omitted, what focus means, what model values are acceptable, and what the summarized result looks like. The precedence rule helps, but the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.
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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantic value by clarifying that files overrides content. It also interprets files as 'file references', which goes beyond the schema's bare 'Files' label. Focus and model remain unexplained, but the key relationship between content and files is usefully documented.
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?
States a clear verb ('Summarize') and a specific resource ('content or file references'), making the primary action immediately legible. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling analysis tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance is provided for when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only conditional note is the files-vs-content precedence, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection context. Among many sibling tools, there is no exclusion or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.