summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the key trait: files are read server-side and never enter the agent's context, with only summaries returned. That materially affects tool selection. It omits other relevant behavior such as latency of local-model calls, error handling, or determinism despite a seed parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the context-safety behavior and the usage recommendation. No filler; every sentence 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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin: it never clarifies the four mutually exclusive input modes (glob/path/paths/text), which is essential for correct invocation. It does cover purpose and the primary behavioral benefit, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only implies input modes ('files or text') without explaining glob vs path vs paths vs text, and adds no meaning for seed, think, concurrency, or model. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Summarize files or text with the local model.' An agent immediately knows this produces summaries of files or text. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like extract, classify, or chat, which could also be applied to text.

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?

Gives a clear usage recommendation with a rationale: 'Prefer this over reading large files yourself.' This tells the agent when this tool wins (large files, avoiding context bloat). It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. extract, chat) or stating when NOT to use it.

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