The Brief Me hero tool. Returns a synthesized pre-interaction brief for a demo contact — personality read, what to open with, what to avoid — plus a cadence heads-up when the relationship is in a Watch state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | Yes | Contact id or name, e.g. 'Isabella Chen' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns a brief and lists its contents, implying a read-only operation without needing to state explicit side effects. It could have disclosed more about error behaviors or prerequisites, but the description is transparent about the primary output.
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 sentences, with the first sentence being a bit promotional ('hero tool') but not wastefully long. The second sentence packs substantive detail about the output. It is concise and front-loaded, but the first sentence could be trimmed.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete, explaining what it returns and the Watch state special case. It does not cover potential errors or semantics of 'Watch state', but this is not critical for basic usage.
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%; the parameter 'contact' is already described with an example. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 returns a synthesized pre-interaction brief with specific content (personality read, opening lines, avoids) and a cadence heads-up for Watch state. This is a specific verb+resource (returns a brief) and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_contact_profile or demo_temperature_check by focusing on the synthesized pre-interaction output.
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 phrase 'pre-interaction brief' clearly implies the tool is used before interacting with a demo contact, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: list_demo_contacts retrieves the book of business, get_contact_profile provides the full profile, get_radar returns the radar widget data, draft_as generates outreach, and demo_temperature_check is an interactive walkthrough. However, brief_me and get_contact_profile both include summaries and cadence notes, which could cause initial confusion even though brief_me is specifically for pre-interaction prep.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but the verb conventions vary: get_ and list_ are used for retrieval, while brief_me, draft_as, and demo_temperature_check use imperative or verb-particle forms. This is not chaotic, but lacks a uniform verb_noun pattern.
With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a demo application. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the demo workflow—listing contacts, viewing profiles, inspecting radar graphs, generating briefs, drafting messages, and simulating temperature checks—without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set thoroughly covers the core capabilities of the Centric demo: viewing contact lists, profiles, radar visualizations, interactive briefs, drafting, and temperature check loops. The intentional demo-only nature (no send/update) means no obvious workflow dead ends exist for the stated purpose.