crompton_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the output is 'Markdown prose', indicating a read operation. No contradictions, but could be more explicit about being read-only and non-destructive.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first identifies action and object, the second details content. Every sentence 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?

Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and the nature of the return value (Markdown prose with specific themes). No gaps.

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% with a single 'track' parameter already described as 'Track number (1-13)'. The description adds context about the output value (character dynamics, writing, role) but does not further explain the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'hand-authored editorial digest for a track', specifying content like 'character dynamics, writing, and role in the album'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on technical aspects or metadata.

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 tool is for narrative analysis of a track but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor comparisons to related siblings like crompton_liner_notes or crompton_cookbook.

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