get_digest

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read-like action without detailing safety, rate limits, or required authentication. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences that are direct and to the point with no unnecessary information. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic operation and input. However, it could mention the format of the digest or constraints like maximum regions, and it does not differentiate from siblings, leaving some gap for an agent.

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 clear description for the 'regions' parameter. The description adds 'Provide the regions you want coverage for' which largely repeats the schema. It provides context on what the digest contains but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a regional digest' with verb and resource, and specifies 'top stories summarised per region'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stories and search_stories which focus on individual stories.

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?

Description instructs to 'Provide the regions you want coverage for', giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternative siblings like get_stories or search_stories.

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