wafle_ai_review_summary

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

Since annotations are empty, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the output goes into a job and references a 24h TTL for caching, indicating an asynchronous or deferred workflow. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only, consumes AI credits, or what happens with the job if not accepted. Some behavioral context is added, but significant gaps remain.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and output format, then succinctly notes the job interaction and follow-up tool. Every word 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavior. It mentions output goes into a job but doesn't say what the tool returns to the caller (if anything) or how to handle the job. It also omits edge cases like no approved reviews. The description provides a reasonable overview but lacks critical completion.

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 schema covers two of three parameters (sku and slug) with descriptions, but max_reviews lacks a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema, and it fails to explain the purpose or constraints of max_reviews. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 what the tool does: 'Summarize the approved reviews of a product into 2–3 sentences plus sentiment + key points.' This includes a specific verb ('summarize'), resource ('reviews of a product'), and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like wafle_ai_product_describe or wafle_ai_categorize.

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 description provides clear context on the workflow: the summary output goes into a job and requires calling wafle_ai_jobs_accept to cache it. This implies when to use the tool and the necessary follow-up, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. The distinct purpose and reference to the accept step give adequate usage guidance without exclusions.

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