summary_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the API name without any details on security, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens to the text (e.g., privacy implications). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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 sentence with no filler words. It conveys the core function efficiently. Every word 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?

Given the tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., is it a JSON object with a 'summary' field?), potential error conditions, or any constraints on 'long texts' (e.g., character limits). A bit more context would improve completeness.

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 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions (e.g., 'max_length' is described as 'Max summary length in characters' in both). No extra context is provided.

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 verb 'summarize' and the resource 'long texts', mentioning the specific API used. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like llm_chat, which could also summarize, but the naming and description are sufficiently distinct for the intended use case.

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 versus alternatives, such as llm_chat for potentially interactive summarization or other text-processing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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