get_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses fetching from default feeds and the return format, and that the limit is total. However, it omits details on error handling, empty feed behavior, or authentication requirements.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: action description and output format. No redundant information. Highly efficient.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the source, limit behavior, and output format. It is mostly complete, though could mention edge cases like empty feeds or invalid limit values.

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?

The description incorporates the 'limit' parameter by explaining it controls the total number of items retrieved. Since schema coverage is 0%, this adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and required fields.

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 tool fetches items from default RSS feeds, specifies the return format as 'title: link', and clarifies the scope (total, not per feed). This is specific and distinguishes from potential per-feed alternatives.

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 implies use cases: when a global digest is needed. It provides a negative guideline ('not per feed') but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context is clear.

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