local_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that raw file content never enters Claude's context (token economy), that only the result is returned, and that map-reduce is automatic for large volumes. These are significant behavioral traits. Missing details like authorization or error handling are acceptable for a local read tool.

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?

The description is three sentences, each essential. First sentence states core functionality, second highlights the primary benefit (token savings), third gives usage guidance and map-reduce note. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 5 parameters, all covered by schema with additional description, no output schema needed (description states only result returned). The description fully explains how the tool works, when to use it, and its token-saving behavior. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based solely on this definition.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail: 'model' enum values are explained with usage context (default 'code' is recommended everywhere, 'light' needs larger max_tokens), 'patterns' are clarified as globs relative to cwd, and 'instruction' is exemplified. This adds value 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lit' - reads) and resource ('fichiers EN LOCAL') and clearly states the action: apply an instruction to the content and return only the result. It distinguishes from manual reading by highlighting token savings and map-reduce behavior, and implicitly differentiates from siblings like local_map, local_ask, and local_status by focusing on digestion with an instruction.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before reading a large file yourself ('A privilegier avant de lire soi-meme un gros fichier ou un ensemble de fichiers'). It also explains the map-reduce fallback for large volumes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools beyond the implied purpose.

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