briefings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the output format (structured JSON) and lists the contained fields, giving a clear picture of the return value. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid key), whether the operation is read-only, or any other side effects. Since this is a get operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is minor, but the description is not exhaustive.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the most critical information ('One briefing as structured JSON') and then enumerates the content elements. There is no wasted wording, and every phrase adds value. It is highly efficient for an agent scanning for tool purpose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must specify the return value, and it does so comprehensively by listing the major components (lead story, ranked stories, research items, summaries, why-it-matters, key points, and ranking time). It covers the essential data an agent would expect from a briefing. It does not mention error handling or whether additional fields exist, but for a single-key lookup tool, this is sufficient. A slight deduction because it does not explicitly mention the key parameter in the description, but that is covered by the schema.

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 parameter 'key' already has a clear description in the schema ('briefing key from list_briefings, e.g. 'ai''). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter itself. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it, so this 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 'One briefing as structured JSON' and enumerates the content fields (lead story, ranked stories, research items, summaries, why-it-matters, key points, ranking time). It distinguishes this from sibling tools implicitly by specifying the structured JSON output, which contrasts with get_page (likely a page) and render_briefing (likely a rendered format). However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state what it is not, so a slight deduction.

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 by indicating the briefing key comes from list_briefings, which tells the agent to call list_briefings first to obtain a valid key. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over render_briefing or get_page, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., 'use render_briefing if you need HTML'). The context is implied but not explicit, so a moderate score.

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 carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the output format and pagination, and implies a read-only retrieval, but does not describe errors, side effects, or what happens for out-of-range pages.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the key output format and pagination detail.

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 is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks explanation of the required key parameter and any usage context relative to sibling tools. It covers output format well but not enough for complete standalone understanding.

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 clarifies that page 0 is the front page, which helps with the page parameter, but it does not explain the required 'key' parameter at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should add more meaning to both parameters.

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 identifies the tool as returning a rendered page of a briefing as a 480x800 1-bit PNG, and clarifies page numbering. It could be more explicit with a verb like 'gets' or 'retrieves', but the resource and output format are clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_briefing or render_briefing. It only describes what the tool returns, not the conditions under which it should be selected.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and no contradictory behavior is described. It does not mention return format, but that is not required for transparency of the action itself.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and includes a concise parenthetical list of categories. No extra words or fluff.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no parameters, the description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose. It could potentially specify what information the listing returns (e.g., titles, IDs), but that is not required for basic usage context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description has no parameter details needed, and no omissions count against it.

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 (List) and the resource (hourly briefings) with specific categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_briefing, get_page, and render_briefing.

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 when to use this tool—when you need to see available briefings—and the context of 'hourly' and category list provides enough guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the name and description make the purpose obvious.

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 carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether it persists data, or any side effects. The 'Early access' note is a minor constraint but not a behavioral trait.

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 short sentences, with the main action first. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded. The 'Early access' note is extra but not wasteful.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what a briefing is, how ranking works, what the output looks like, or any preconditions. An agent would struggle to know exactly what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'feeds' and 'persona' without explaining their purpose, format, or constraints beyond what the schema types (URI array and string) already convey. Minimal added meaning.

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 ranks and renders a briefing from user-provided feeds and a persona. The verb 'rank and render' distinguishes it from siblings like get_briefing (retrieve existing) and list_briefings (list), though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Early access only for now' is a note on availability, not a usage condition or decision rule. It does not say when to prefer this over get_briefing or list_briefings.

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