AI Daily Brew

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility. It conveys a read-style retrieval and specifies the returned content areas, which is useful. However, it does not mention not-found behavior, authorization needs, or response format. For a simple one-parameter getter this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the core operation and then lists the key profile contents. There is no filler or 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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives an agent enough to call it correctly and know what to expect. An explicit pointer to search_builders for slug discovery or a note about missing profiles would improve it, but those are minor gaps.

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 100%: the only parameter, slug, is described as 'The profile slug from search_builders.' The description reinforces that lookup happens 'by slug' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 action and resource: 'One builder profile in full, by slug.' It also enumerates what the profile contains ('what they are building, their links, and their projects'), which distinguishes it from search_builders and get_publication.

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 phrasing 'by slug' and 'One builder profile in full' implies this is the tool to use when you already have a specific builder slug and want the complete profile, as opposed to searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes subject matter but does not explicitly state that the tool returns informational content, whether it is read-only, or what form the output takes.

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, compact sentence that groups three relevant content topics without filler. However, it is front-loaded as a content pitch rather than a tool behavior statement, and the phrase 'the wall' is left unexplained.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return content: what the publication is, who it serves, and how to subscribe or get listed. Adding an explicit 'Returns...' or 'Provides...' framing would make it fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully complete, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. This is the baseline case for a zero-parameter tool.

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 name supplies the verb ('get'), and the description clearly identifies the resource (AI Daily Brew publication) plus the content areas it covers. It is distinguishable from the sibling builder tools by topic, though the description itself is a noun-phrase content summary rather than an explicit operational statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The 'who it is for' line hints at an audience but does not tell an agent when to select this tool over get_builder or search_builders.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It adds context that results are self-submitted and public, implying quality and accessibility, and that only published profiles are included. However, it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or whether it's strictly read-only (though 'search' implies it), leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The trailing clause about what they are working on and where to find them adds useful context, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

This is a simple search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the result content (profiles, projects, contact info) but does not explicitly describe the response shape or any pagination metadata. Adequate for a straightforward search, but not fully 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 100%: both 'limit' and 'query' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('the What Are You Brewing wall'), and specifies the subject: people building with AI with published profiles. This differentiates it from siblings like get_builder (specific lookup) and get_publication (likely publications) by emphasizing a search over a collection.

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?

Use is implied: this tool is for searching the public wall of builder profiles. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over get_builder or get_publication, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not made explicit.

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