get_pending_digests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states it returns a dict with either a 'pending' list or a 'message' if nothing is pending. It implies a read-only operation (no side effects mentioned). However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or any potential blocking behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 paragraphs, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It is informative without being verbose, but could be slightly more concise (e.g., merging the second paragraph into a single sentence). The structure is logical: purpose, output format, usage instructions.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (context indicates output schema exists), the description provides sufficient detail about the return values and expected next steps. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use the results.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the return format and structure of each item, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get runs that need LLM digestion, with pre-built prompts.' It also lists what each item contains (activity_id, name, date, prompt) and distinguishes from sibling tools like save_run_digest by mentioning it as the next step.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to get runs needing digestion) and what to do afterwards (process items and save via save_run_digest). It even suggests best practice (spawning parallel Haiku subagents). No alternative tools are named, but the usage context is fully specified.

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