get_task_digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description rightly spends its space on what annotations cannot express: truncation semantics (truncated vs scan_truncated), per-group caps with full counts, and timezone resolution order (parameter > GTASKS_TIMEZONE > UTC). Only gap is silence on the max_lists/max_tasks scan bounds' effect on results.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds distinct semantics (timezone, window definition, caps, truncation flags) with no filler. Slightly fragmented across line breaks but still tight.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it instead explains the two subtle response flags that a schema alone would not clarify. It leaves the scan-bound parameters (max_lists, max_tasks) undocumented, which is the main completeness gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well for timezone (IANA format, default resolution) and days ('tomorrow through today plus days, inclusive') and limit_per_group, but max_lists, max_tasks, and task_list_id are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 and resource: grouping open tasks into overdue / due today / upcoming / undated buckets. That is clearly distinct from sibling read tools like list_tasks or search_tasks, though the description never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'digest' and by the grouping behavior; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_tasks or search_tasks, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a task_list_id scope. The reader can infer intent but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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