Pre-task briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and reach profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the briefing is task-scoped and aggregates multiple data sources, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or latency that would matter for an open-world aggregate call.

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 filler, with the contents of the briefing front-loaded before the call-to-action. Appropriately sized for a pre-task aggregate tool, though the long enumeration in the first sentence is dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does list the expected briefing contents (dependencies, versions, vulnerabilities, releases, decisions, verdict). It is complete enough for an agent to know what it will get back, with only the exact format left unspecified.

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 schema already explains both 'task' and 'files' with examples, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 enumerates the concrete contents of the briefing — touched dependencies, installed versions, version-confirmed vulnerabilities, releases since, recorded decisions, and a delegation verdict — which clearly differentiates it from narrower siblings like vulnerability_scan or dependency_health. It is a clear aggregate verb+resource, though the vague tool name ('what_should_i_know') carries no signal on its own and the description must do all the work.

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?

It states when to call: 'Call BEFORE starting a non-trivial task, especially one that changes dependencies.' That is a clear triggering context with a qualifier. It does not, however, name any alternative (e.g. when to reach for dependency_check or get_context instead), so there are no explicit exclusions or routing rules.

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