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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the category/cadence detail adds useful context, but it does not mention return format, ordering, or pagination. This is acceptable for a zero-parameter listing tool but not richly 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then packs the necessary enum-like category information into a parenthetical. No wasted words.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned by enumerating all briefing categories and their cadences. It does not explicitly describe the return shape (e.g., list of titles), but 'list the briefings available' is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on what is listed rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('briefings available') and enumerates the exact categories and cadences. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_briefing, render_briefing, or get_page.

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 context is clear: use it to see which briefings exist. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings or states when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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