List digest archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is read-only (lists), discloses pagination behavior ('paginated'), and describes the ordering ('newest first'). This goes beyond a minimal statement and gives the agent a solid understanding of what to expect, though it omits details like response envelope or potential rate limits.

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 a single sentence that packs in all essential information: the resource, the fields, pagination, and ordering. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every phrase adds value.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, fields, pagination, and ordering, which is adequate for a simple list operation. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the response structure (e.g., whether results are wrapped in an object with pagination metadata), which is a notable gap for an agent that needs to parse the response.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (page and pageSize) with their defaults and bounds, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'paginated' but does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and names the exact resource ('past daily digests') along with the fields returned (id, issue date, issue number, story count). It also specifies pagination and ordering, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_daily_digest, which likely fetches a single digest.

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 makes the primary use case clear: retrieving a paginated list of past daily digests. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings (e.g., get_daily_digest) or provide any exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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