read_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose scope ('current' is vague), whether it requires team membership/permissions, how large the digest is, or any freshness/recency semantics — all left unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 need not be explained. But with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves key agent-facing questions unanswered: what the digest contains, how it differs from the log/ledger tools, and what the team parameter accepts.

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 single 'team' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, so the schema does not explain what values are valid or what the 'core' default means. The description only weakly implies team scoping via the phrase 'team digest' and adds no format or selection detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read' + 'team digest'), so an agent knows the operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like read_ledger, read_audit_log, or read_issue, and 'digest' is left undefined relative to those read-oriented tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative read tools (read_ledger, read_audit_log, read_issue). The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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