get_digest

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

No annotations provided, and the description only implies read-only behavior without stating it explicitly. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation safety net, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Efficient but could be more structured. Not overly concise to the point of missing critical info, but it earns its space.

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 no output schema and simple params, the description provides a high-level overview. However, it lacks details on response format, pagination, or what 'needs-review items' specifically means. Adequate but not complete for full understanding.

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 50% (workspace_id described, period only has enum). The description adds output content details but does not explain the period parameter beyond 'weekly' which contradicts the enum support for 1d and 30d. It adds some value but leaves a gap for period meaning.

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), resource (workspace digest), and content summary (needs-review items and top opportunities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_change or list_changes by specifying it's a weekly summary. However, it could be more precise about the data scope beyond 'weekly'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For instance, does one use this over list_changes for a quick overview? No alternatives or when-not-to-use mentioned.

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