what_should_i_know

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

Annotations already declare 'readOnlyHint' true and 'openWorldHint' true, covering safety and openness. The description adds that the tool provides 'advisories, active decisions, signals, and ecosystem updates,' which offers some behavioral context but no additional details about side effects or limitations.

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 long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance effectively.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must clarify what the output contains. It only vaguely mentions 'advisories, active decisions, signals, and ecosystem updates' without specifying format or structure. This gap reduces completeness, though the description is adequate for a simple briefing tool.

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 input schema is empty (zero parameters), and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. With no parameters, the description need not add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 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 is a 'pre-task briefing' that provides 'advisories, active decisions, signals, and ecosystem updates.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the instruction to call it 'BEFORE starting any non-trivial task' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ecosystem_pulse' or 'vulnerability_scan'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Call BEFORE starting any non-trivial task'), providing clear context. While it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for a typical use case.

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