ast_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the output format (size labels, token estimates) and that type headers include inheritance and decorators, but omits performance implications, limitations (e.g., max depth), or error handling. This is adequate for a read-only analysis tool but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Get a compact one-page module map'), and each sentence adds meaningful detail.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (size labels, token estimates, type headers). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations, which would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions: 'json' and 'paths'). The description adds value by explaining the output format (size labels, token estimates, etc.), which indirectly clarifies the purpose of the parameters. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a compact one-page module map of a directory.' It specifies output details (size labels, token estimates, type headers with inheritance and decorators), which distinguishes it from siblings like ast_grep, ast_outline, and ast_show.

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 implies usage for obtaining a summary digest, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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