briefing_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains some filtering semantics but does not disclose return volume limits, pagination, ordering, whether resolved/dismissed items are summarized or detailed, or whether this is a read-only operation. Given zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap for a list-type tool.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and default behavior, then rationale for filter design. Efficient and focused. Slightly verbose in the project_id explanation but that content earns its place given the unusual 'current' sentinel. No filler.

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 an output schema present, so return format is covered. The description covers default behavior, filtering semantics, and design rationale. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or result ordering for a list tool, and no explicit 'read-only' statement. For a filtered list tool with output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default status (pending), the project_id empty-default semantics and the 'current' special value, and the tag narrowing use case. This meaningfully complements the schema's reusable intent behind default filtering behavior.

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+resource ('List Leader Briefing items') and clarifies the default behavior (shows pending items). It distinguishes itself from siblings like briefing_add/briefing_resolve/briefing_dismiss since this is the listing operation. It could mention the 'Leader' scope more explicitly but the core purpose is clear.

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 explains default behavior ('Default shows pending items') and gives concrete use guidance: narrowing a long decision queue by project_id and/or tag. It explains the project_id empty-default rationale (not hiding anything, pre-2026 rows unprotected). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings, but the filtering guidance is actionable and clear.

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