Skim the archive

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the description adds useful context beyond them: the ordering is newest-first, the result is capped by max_tokens, and the tool reads local files with no network access. The return-line format is also disclosed, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 three tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core operation and return format before the routing alternatives. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's disclosure of return-line format is essential and present. It also covers local-file access, ordering, and token capping, which is sufficient for correct invocation. The only meaningful gap is that it does not distinguish this tool from `list_spans`, a sibling that may otherwise appear similar.

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 100%, so all three parameters (`max`, `run`, `max_tokens`) are already documented with bounds and examples. The description reinforces that `max_tokens` caps output size and that results are grouped per span, but adds little parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a concrete operation — one digest line per span, newest first, within a token cap — and names the exact output format (`<run>/<NNNN> <time> ~<n>t: <digest>` lines). It also distinguishes itself from search_spans and read_span, so an agent can identify its scope without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to search_spans for word lookup and read_span for opening content, which covers the main alternatives. However, it omits any distinction from the sibling `list_spans`, which is arguably the most confusable tool. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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