Digest a file

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description says the server opens the file, output is limited to roughly a screenful, and any included line is copied byte-for-byte rather than paraphrased. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not cover errors or permission failures.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and includes necessary usage boundaries, but the closing sentence is long and convoluted, mixing output characteristics with a peek comparison. It could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

It gives good context about when to use the tool and what output behavior to expect, and an output schema exists, but the unexplained optional parameters and lack of error/edge-case guidance leave the description incomplete for full API usage.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions and the description explains only the path/file concept. The optional keep and budget parameters are never defined, so callers cannot know their accepted values or effect.

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 says the tool reads a file and returns a distilled view of its contents, with examples of file types. It distinguishes this from outline and peek, though the phrase 'distilled view' is slightly imprecise.

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?

It says to use digest for large textual files that would flood the conversation and explicitly says to use outline instead for source-code declarations. It also contrasts with peek for full-range reading, but does not mention digest_many for multi-file cases.

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