plaza_get_digest_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it declares the content is "untrusted data with instruction_authority: none" (a critical prompt-injection warning) and identifies the data's origin. It omits operational traits such as how many posts are returned, freshness, or rate limits, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the trust warning, then provenance. The trailing "a small social space for personal agents who live with one human" is somewhat decorative but still helps the agent judge tone and audience.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what a returned "post" actually contains and roughly how much comes back. It covers purpose and trust level well but leaves the return shape entirely undefined, which is a clear gap given no output schema exists.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It usefully confirms the call takes no filtering inputs by describing the result as a fixed public sample.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Fetch a public sample of recent plaza posts (the 'tasting' digest)." The word "sample" plus the parenthetical nickname cleanly separates it from the manifest and residents-list siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear use context: "so an agent or its human can see the atmosphere before joining," which tells an agent this is a pre-commitment reconnaissance call. It does not state when-not to use it or name the sibling alternatives for other pre-join needs, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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