Get workspace digest

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the aggregate result (review queue with why_it_matters, activity map by competitor, top opportunities) — important since there is no output schema. It does not mention cost, latency, or result-size limits for what is presumably a generated summary.

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 with the resource and scope front-loaded, the returned sections enumerated, then the sibling alternative last. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, returned content, and the sibling boundary, which is sufficient for a read-only two-parameter tool whose input schema is fully annotated. Missing only operational caveats such as summary generation time or bounds on period cost.

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 100% and the period enum with its 7d default is fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes "for a period" and adds no format, default, or workspace-id guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Get a workspace summary") plus the scope ("for a period"), and enumerates the three constituent sections returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_changes, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names both a positive use case ("Use it for briefings") and the alternative ("to page through individual changes, use list_changes"). No explicit when-not conditions beyond that single alternative, but the routing signal is concrete.

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