zins_get_shadow_it_summary

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with a read operation. The description adds that the tool returns summary statistics but does not disclose other behaviors such as potential data aggregation rules or caching. Since annotations already cover the read-only safety, the description adds modest extra transparency.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists key outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Provides' and the resource, containing no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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?

The tool has a clear purpose and an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. The listed outputs (total apps, categories, risk distribution) give a good sense of the summary. It could briefly note that it complements zins_get_shadow_it_apps for a complete picture, but the current description is sufficient.

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 100% description coverage with detailed parameter explanations including defaults and interval constraints. The tool description does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate given the schema's richness. The schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, so baseline score of 3 is justified.

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 specifies the tool provides 'shadow IT summary statistics' including concrete elements like total shadow apps, app categories, and risk distribution. The verb 'provides' and the resource 'shadow IT summary' are clear. It distinguishes from sibling tool zins_get_shadow_it_apps, which likely lists individual apps.

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 the tool is for obtaining a summary overview of shadow IT, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like zins_get_shadow_it_apps. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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