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 does disclose key behaviors: aggregation, deduplication, derived field computation, and phase determination. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to conflicting events during deduplication, whether the input events are mutated, or what the output structure looks like. The description adds value but leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by specific operations. Every sentence earns its place. It's concise and structured well, though it could arguably be more explicit about usage context.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main operations but leaves gaps: no output format description, no mention of error conditions (e.g., empty events array), no details on how duplicates are resolved. The sibling tools suggest a pipeline context, but the description doesn't fully situate this tool within that pipeline.

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 50%: reference_time has a description, but events does not. The description mentions 'events' and 'reference_time' implicitly through 'extracted events' and 'days_since_surgery' (which requires reference_time), but it doesn't add detail about the events array structure or how reference_time is used beyond the schema. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but doesn't fully explain the relationship between the two parameters.

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: creating a normalized timeline state from extracted events. It lists specific operations (aggregates events, resolves duplicates, computes derived fields, determines recovery phase) that distinguish it from siblings like extract_timeline_events or summarize_timeline_context. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it loses a point.

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 usage context: it takes extracted events and produces a normalized state, which suggests it should be used after extract_timeline_events and before summarize_timeline_context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like upsert_message_into_timeline or days_since_event. The usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a pure calculation ('Return the number of days') and gives an example of an event name, but it does not disclose behavior for missing events, how timeline_state is read, or inclusive/exclusive edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence with an illustrative example and no filler. It is as concise as possible, though it achieves that concision by omitting necessary 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?

Given a nested timeline_state object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits the shape/meaning of timeline_state, the relationship between event_name and timeline_state, and failure behavior, so an agent lacks enough context to call it reliably.

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 only 33% (just reference_time is described), and the description does not compensate. It explains event_name only indirectly through 'named timeline event' and an example, while timeline_state remains completely unexplained – an agent cannot tell how event_name relates to the timeline_state object.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a resource ('number of days since a named timeline event'), and gives a concrete example ('surgery_date'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as extract_timeline_events or summarize_timeline_context. The intended use is only implied by the name and the 'since a named timeline event' phrase.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose core behavior: parsing time expressions and detecting event categories, and 'extract' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not state whether input is modified, what the output looks like, or any limitations, which leaves some behavioral detail unspecified.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful detail about parsing behavior and event types without repeating schema information.

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 simple one-parameter extractor, the description covers the input and the extraction behavior quite well. However, it omits the expected output shape and the integration point with sibling tools such as build_timeline_state. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding how to chain these timeline tools.

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?

With only one parameter, the schema already defines the messages array structure and the ISO-8601 timestamp field. The description adds that the input is a list of conversation messages and that time expressions in them are parsed, which helps connect the parameter to the tool's behavior. It does not explain the role of 'id' or further elaborate on timestamp semantics, but the description partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('extract') and a clear resource ('timeline-relevant events from a list of conversation messages'), and it enumerates concrete event types such as surgery, stitch removal, and medication start/stop. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the extraction framing is distinct from build, summarize, days_since, and upsert.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. Given that build_timeline_state, summarize_timeline_context, days_since_event, and upsert_message_into_timeline exist, the description should state that this is the preprocessing extraction step and what the alternatives are for. Usage is only implied by naming the input.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it generates a summary, with no mention of whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies any state, what the output format is, or any constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficiently transparent.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core verb and object. It uses no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. It could be more informative, but for what it contains, it is concise and structured.

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?

With one nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what timeline_state is and what the summary looks like. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess about input structure and return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that is meant to be invoked correctly.

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 only parameter timeline_state has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. 'Timeline-aware' hints at the input's role, but does not explain what timeline_state should contain or how it relates to the summary. The description adds no semantic value for the parameter beyond the schema's bare object type.

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 states a specific action ('Generate') and resource ('short timeline-aware summary'), and identifies the use case ('insertion into an LLM system prompt or tool context'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like extract_timeline_events or days_since_event, though it could be more explicit that it summarizes a timeline_state object.

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 usage by stating the output is intended for system prompts or tool context, giving context for when to use it. However, it provides no explicit comparison to sibling tools, no conditions that select it over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the internal pipeline (extract, merge, recompute) but does not clarify whether the input existing_timeline_state is mutated, whether the operation is idempotent, what the return value is, or how duplicate messages are handled. This is a significant gap for an upsert-style operation.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and quickly conveys the key operations, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 (nested objects, 2 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is not complete enough. It omits critical details such as the expected shape of existing_timeline_state, whether the updated state is returned, and how errors or duplicates are handled. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details. It does not: it only refers to 'one new message' and 'existing state' without explaining the structure of existing_timeline_state, how message.id/text/timestamp are used, or any constraints. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 action: 'Incrementally update a running timeline with one new message,' and outlines the sub-steps of extracting events, merging, and recomputing derived fields. It implicitly distinguishes from build_timeline_state by focusing on incremental update, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings.

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: when there is a new message to add to an existing timeline state. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like extract_timeline_events or build_timeline_state, so the guidance is only implied rather than directly actionable.

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