brief_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful output context—version, hash, and approval validity—but says nothing about permissions, failure behavior for unknown brief IDs, or whether any validation side effects occur.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 simple one-parameter read with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core operation and highlights return fields. However, it leaves gaps around ID semantics, error cases, and what "approval validity" concretely means.

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 0% for the single required brief_id, so the description should compensate but does not. "Read a brief" only restates the obvious linkage; it adds no format, source, or scoping semantics for the identifier.

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 states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("brief") and adds what the response contains (version, hash, approval validity). It is clearly a read operation, distinguishing it from sibling write tools like brief_create and brief_update, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by "Read a brief" with a required brief_id, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as brief_approve or quote_read. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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