rate_briefing_entryGive a precise up/down signal on one story of a briefing: more like this, less like this, more technical, simpler, deeper, shorter, follow it, or mute its topics. Applies to the topics of that story, so the next briefing weighs them differently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signal | Yes | The signal to record | |
| entry_id | Yes | Entry id from get_briefing | |
| briefing_id | No | Which briefing. Omit for the latest. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: the signal applies to topics of the story and influences future briefings. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, offering a clear cause-effect explanation.
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?
Two sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and available signals; the second explains the consequence. Every sentence earns its place.
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 rating tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect. However, it omits return value information and error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is largely complete given the tool's low complexity.
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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description lists some signal values (e.g., 'more like this') which mirror the enum, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not enrich parameter understanding.
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's action: 'Give a precise up/down signal on one story of a briefing' with enumerated signal types. It distinguishes the resource (one story) from broader operations like `correct_briefing` or `tune_topic`, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 context by stating the effect ('the next briefing weighs them differently'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like `tune_topic` or `correct_briefing`. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.
Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.
With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.