confer_digest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context by stating that both positive and negative outcomes are reported and that this is deliberate for falsifiability. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether there are side effects, or what the returned digest concretely contains.

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 with no filler, and the second sentence usefully explains why both halves are reported. It is somewhat indirect and jargon-heavy, but it remains compact and every sentence contributes.

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 one-parameter, read-only-looking digest, the description provides the gist and the reporting philosophy. However, with no output schema, it leaves the concrete return format, field names, and interpretation of 'could not settle' unspecified, and the domain-specific term 'peer channel' could confuse an agent without additional context.

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 only parameter, cwd, is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 communicates an evaluative purpose: reporting both where the peer channel changed the answer and where it could not settle something. This distinguishes it from raw event tools like confer_record or confer_history, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb and relies on the metaphorical phrase 'earning its place.'

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as confer_history or confer_record are mentioned. The intended use case is only implied by the phrase 'whether the peer channel is earning its place,' so an agent must infer when to call this tool.

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