Get the stored brief for a specific action, including readiness status, whether research was cut short, settled credits used, generated timestamp, and the execution-ready markdown when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | Yes | UUID of the action to load the brief for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It mentions 'when available' for the markdown, a conditional, but does not describe read-only nature, error conditions (e.g., missing action), permissions, or any side effects. The description focuses on output contents rather than behavioral traits.
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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get the stored brief') then lists the returned fields concisely. No filler or repetition.
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 simple single-parameter retriever with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the response includes. It notes the markdown is present 'when available,' covering the main conditional. It does not mention error handling or preconditions, but these are minor for a 'get' tool with no explicit constraints.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter actionId is fully described as 'UUID of the action to load the brief for.' The description adds no extra semantic value beyond 'specific action,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already covers the parameter.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the stored brief for a specific action.' It enumerates the key fields returned, distinguishing it from other get_* tools and from the sibling generate_action_brief, which creates rather than retrieves.
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 retrieval via 'stored brief' and the name 'get' versus 'generate' in the sibling list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no clear 'use this when' or 'do not use if' guidance beyond what is inferred from naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
