ai_summarize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context beyond basic functionality by mentioning the cost ('Cost: $0.004 USDC via x402'), which is a useful behavioral trait (monetary implication). However, it lacks details on other behaviors like rate limits, error handling, or output format (e.g., summary structure), leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds return value context, and the third provides cost information. Each sentence earns its place, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating functional and non-functional details). No wasted words, but minor room for improvement in flow.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (AI-based summarization with cost), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and cost but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases, performance, or output format. For a tool with no structured output, more context on what the summary looks like would enhance completeness, but it's minimally adequate.

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 schema already documents both parameters (text and maxLength) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how maxLength interacts with summarization quality or default values). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Summarize any text using AI' specifies the verb (summarize) and resource (text). It distinguishes from siblings like ai_sentiment or ai_translate by focusing on summarization rather than sentiment analysis or translation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all AI siblings (e.g., ai_code_review could also involve text processing).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost implication ('Cost: $0.004 USDC via x402'), which might hint at usage considerations, but doesn't specify scenarios where summarization is preferred over other AI tools like ai_sentiment or when not to use it (e.g., for non-text inputs). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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