aegis_index_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description's only added behavioral signal is that the corpus is 'local', which is useful scope context but largely overlaps openWorldHint=false. No further traits (result size, refresh behavior) are disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the scope qualifier ('local AEGIS comparison corpus') lands before the reader wonders which corpus.

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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be described, and a zero-parameter read-only list tool has little else to specify. It is nearly complete, though a note on corpus scope or result size would close the last gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless listing operation.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (papers in the local AEGIS comparison corpus), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like aegis_status or aegis_index_add, but the resource scope makes the distinction inferable.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus aegis_status or aegis_analyze_paper, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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