Resume project

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

The description discloses the content of the summary (active sessions, recent activity, etc.) but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, or performance implications. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, which is partially met.

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 in Spanish that packs useful information. It is front-loaded and without wasted words, though English might be preferable for an AI agent.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and contents. It does not repeat schema information but adds context on what the summary includes.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 it provides a summary of the repo's agora including active sessions, recent activity, collisions, and unread notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like activity_log (detailed logs) or check_collision (specific collision) by being an aggregating overview.

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 use for a broad overview of multiple aspects, contrasting with sibling tools that focus on specific functions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative suggestions.

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