kvc_send_digest_now

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states an immediate email send is triggered but omits side effects, idempotency, or confirmation of completion. The behavioral impact (e.g., rate limits, sent status) is not described, which is a gap for an action that has real-world consequences.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, hence not a perfect 5.

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 zero parameters and an output schema exists (not detailed here), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about when to use the tool (e.g., only after configuring a digest) or any constraints. For a simple trigger, this is adequate but has room for improvement.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies that no additional input is needed. Since there are no parameters to document, the description adds no further meaning, which is acceptable and earns the baseline score of 4.

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 'Trigger an immediate digest email send' uses a specific verb ('trigger') and clearly identifies the resource ('digest email send'). It is distinct from sibling tools like kvc_place_test_call or kvc_upload_contacts, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. For a tool with no parameters, the context of use (e.g., manual testing, admin actions) is absent, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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