get_timing_summary

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Parse...' without disclosing what input is read, whether it waits or blocks, what happens if the report is missing, or whether any side effects occur. The read-only nature is implied by 'parse' but not explicitly stated.

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 short sentence with no filler and is easy to scan. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be spelled out, but the description still omits essential context: what 'report_timing_summary output' refers to, how the optional timeout is used, and what workflow step this belongs to. With no annotations and minimal parameter documentation, the definition is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 schema has one optional parameter, timeout_s, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify how the timeout applies, its units, or whether it controls report generation or parsing.

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 ('Parse') and a clear resource ('report_timing_summary output'), so an agent can infer the tool consumes timing-summary report data and returns structured results. It doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling timing tools like get_timing_paths, but the resource naming makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_timing_paths, check_timing_constraints, or analyze_timing_closure. The phrase 'report_timing_summary output' implies some prior report-generation step, but that prerequisite is not stated.

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