nest_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that person names, date timeline, and source filenames are suppressed, framing the 'walled' behavior. It also states output format (one-page Markdown). While it doesn't mention side effects or error conditions, the read-only nature is strongly implied by the content focus, and the suppression statement adds valuable behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a dash and semicolons to pack related details without redundancy. No wasted words; every clause adds information about what is included, excluded, or restricted.

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 the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the return format (one-page Markdown) and content boundaries. It lacks parameter-level context, but the schema covers parameter existence. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and key limitations.

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 compensate for parameter ambiguity. However, it makes no mention of app_id or db_path—their roles, requiredness, or how they relate to the Nest DB. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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 produces 'a one-page Markdown map of a seeded Nest DB' with specific components (category breakdown, clusters, secret kinds, file reading). It uses the verb 'map' and names the resource, making the purpose apparent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nest_scan, but the 'WALLED view' phrase and suppression of content indicate a distinct structural digest role.

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 provides context that this is the MCP-accessible 'walled' version, and explicitly states the full 'unwalled' digest is only available via local CLI and 'never returned over MCP'. This guides when to use this tool versus the CLI, but it does not name alternative MCP sibling tools or provide exclusions beyond the CLI boundary.

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