Get Intent Network Digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the digest's composition (matches, pending intro requests, incoming intros), but adds nothing about freshness, ordering, pagination or auth needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by a compact usage framing. Nothing is redundant, though the quoted question is more rhetorical than informational.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only aggregator with no output schema, the description substitutes well for a return-value spec by listing what the digest contains, and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps (format, ordering, recency) remain but are not critical for invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and the empty schema is self-evident.

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 (Get) and resource (personalized digest from the Intent Network), then enumerates its three components: relevant matches, pending intro requests, incoming intros. This implicitly separates it from siblings like search_matches or request_intro, but it never names an alternative the way a 5 would.

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 framing question 'what matters to me right now?' implies a situational trigger for calling it, which is better than nothing. However there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., use search_matches to filter matches yourself), so usage remains inferred.

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