get_issues_digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the context of 'recent changes' and query matching, but these are essentially restatements of the tool's purpose and parameters. The description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or output behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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 compact and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence and bullet provides necessary information without unnecessary verbosity, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete for calling the tool correctly: it details the query, time range, limit, and optional instance. It lacks guidance on when to choose this tool relative to siblings, but that underlies the usage_guidelines score and does not significantly weaken the overall contextual picture for a simple read-only digest tool.

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 includes an explicit Args block that documents every parameter with format details and defaults. For example, it clarifies that 'since' accepts a duration like '24h' or a date like '2026-03-18', and that 'limit' is the max number of issues. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and titles, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a digest of recent changes for issues matching a query, which is a specific verb and resource. While this is reasonably specific, the description does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_issue_changes_summary or search_issues, which could also relate to recent changes or queries.

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 no information about when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related sibling tools, leaving it to the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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