get_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies the tool returns particular content types but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, pagination, or other operational behaviors. The 'get' verb implies safety, but this is not made explicit.

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 first sentence is information-dense and clearly states the tool's function. The second sentence is somewhat promotional but adds a conceptual hook. Overall, the description is compact and front-loaded with the essential information.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately outlines the return categories. It does not specify response format or ordering, but for a digest-type tool this may be acceptable. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by enumerating the content types.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully defines the interface. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline score for 0-parameter tools is 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a personalized digest from the Intent Network and enumerates its contents (relevant matches, pending intro requests, incoming intros). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_matches or request_intro by highlighting its aggregative, overview-oriented purpose.

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 the use case (wanting a digest of matches and intros) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use this for a daily summary instead of querying individual tools'.

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