summarize_email

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 mentions 'store assistant memory,' hinting at persistence, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what 'store' entails (e.g., duration, access). This is inadequate for a tool that modifies state, as implied by 'store.'

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 concise with two clear actions in a single sentence, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating parameter hints or usage context without losing brevity.

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 complexity (involves summarization and storage), lack of annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (mitigating need to explain returns), it fails to address key aspects like parameter semantics and behavioral traits, making it only minimally viable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'message_id' parameter at all—no context on format, source, or requirements. This leaves a critical gap, as the agent won't know how to obtain or use this parameter effectively.

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 with a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('an email'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'meeting_brief' or 'gmail_get_message', which might also involve summarization or email-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID), exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like 'gmail_get_message' or 'meeting_brief', leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

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