get_issues_digest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that the tool gets a digest of recent changes, implying a read-only operation. No side effects or auth requirements mentioned, but the output schema exists and it's sufficient for a read tool.

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 extremely concise: two sentences introducing the purpose followed by a structured parameter list. Every element adds value, no redundancy.

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 complexity (4 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the action. It could elaborate on what the digest contains, but the output schema likely handles that, so it's adequately complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning: explains query as search query, since as duration/date with examples and default, limit as max issues, instance as optional. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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 specific verb 'Get a digest of recent changes' and resource 'issues matching a query', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_issues or get_issue_changes_summary.

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 the main input (query) and explains parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the 'digest' nature, so it's clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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