batch_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say this is a read operation, what happens if the batch directory is missing or incomplete, whether errors are surfaced as data or raised, or whether file hashes are computed on demand (potentially costly). It essentially restates expected return content rather than behavior.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the key noun phrase front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still provides nothing about the required input, failure modes, or how the manifest relates to a batch created by capture_start. For a tool whose only argument is undocumented, this is under-specified.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'output_dir', and the description never mentions it. The name is conventional enough to guess, but the description adds zero meaning — for example, whether it is the batch directory, a parent directory, or a relative path.

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 names the resource ('the manifest of a batch') and enumerates its contents (per-symbol status, errors, file hashes), which is more informative than a tautology. But there is no verb at all — it never says whether this reads a manifest from disk, computes it, or returns a cached summary. It only weakly distinguishes itself from siblings like capture_status and symbol_data.

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 use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as capture_status or symbol_data. An agent must infer the use case from the phrase 'manifest of a batch' alone.

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