log_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: it reads local state and transmits nothing, so there are no side effects or data-egress concerns. It also states what is returned (SHA-256 plus entry count), though it omits any note on mutation safety or failure modes if the log is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, the returned values, and the side-effect constraint all appear immediately.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does (hash + count). For a low-complexity read tool this is essentially complete, lacking only edge-case behavior when the log is empty or missing.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by implying the log is implicit.

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 ('Show') and specific resource content: the SHA-256 digest and entry count of the 'sorting log'. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like seal_run and verify_seal, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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?

'Without sending anything' implies a purely local, no-export inspection use case, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over verify_seal or seal_run, nor any preconditions such as requiring a log to already exist.

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