llm_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions generating a digest and optional webhook sending but lacks details on side effects (e.g., network call when send=true), auth requirements, rate limits, or data persistence. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise with four sentences: a purpose statement, a brief of core functionality, and a parameter table. The structure is front-loaded with the main goal, making it easy to scan. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers all key aspects for a 2-parameter tool: period options, send behavior, and extra features (spend spikes, simulation). It omits output format details, but an output schema exists to fill that gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'period' parameter with explicit allowed values ('today', 'week', 'month', 'all time') and clarifying the 'send' parameter as a boolean to POST to a webhook. With schema description coverage at 0%, this compensation is strong.

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 states the tool generates a savings digest and optionally sends it to a webhook. It specifies the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'savings digest', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like llm_budget or llm_analyze by focusing on a formatted summary with spend spike detection and simulation.

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 implies usage for periodic savings reports (today, week, month, all time) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when not to use it. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no guidance is given.

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