error_summary_md

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the output constraints (within 500 characters, excludes complete logs, duplicate stacks, and response bodies), which gives the agent clear expectations. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality and constraints. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description explains the output format and constraints, compensating partially for the lack of output schema. However, it does not describe how errors are aggregated or how to use the input parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for correct invocation. Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, one nested), more detail would be warranted.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the two parameters ('limit' and 'evidence'). The tool expects a nested object, but the description lacks any guidance on their meaning, format, or relationship to the error aggregation, severely degrading its usability.

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: 'Output the error aggregation results as a Markdown summary within 500 characters, excluding complete logs, duplicate stacks, or complete response bodies.' It includes a specific verb ('output'), resource ('error aggregation results'), and output format ('Markdown summary'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'error_analyze' or 'error_fix_suggestion'.

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 implies when to use the tool (to get a summary of errors) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The lack of exclusions or context-specific recommendations limits its helpfulness for tool selection.

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