local_digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: it explains the tool reduces context load and returns verified path:line quotes rather than raw content. It does not state limits (file size, binary/unsupported input) or behavior on an unreadable path.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output value before the practical tip. Every sentence contributes; the only minor slack is that the three parenthetical log examples could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The definition is nearly complete for a 2-parameter read-only tool, with the sole real gap being the undocumented 'focus' parameter.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'Log or command output file' weakly implies the required path, but the optional 'focus' parameter is never mentioned or explained anywhere, leaving an agent unable to know what it does or when to set it.

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 gives a specific verb (triage) and resource (a long log or command output file), with concrete examples (CI log, test output, server log). It clearly reads as distinct from local_ask and local_edit, but it never names or contrasts those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 tip 'redirect a noisy command to a file, then digest it' supplies a concrete trigger condition, and 'instead of loading the whole file into context' explains the tradeoff that motivates use. There is no stated when-not-to-use case or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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