get_platform_briefing

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden, disclosing: real-time data, scope requirement, governance by Arbiter policy, and cryptographic proof (ProofLink receipt). No mention of destructiveness, but context implies read-only. Minor gap: no explicit statement of non-destructiveness or rate limits.

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 compact paragraphs: first lists tool output and use case, second adds scope and legal context. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, front-loaded with critical information.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates all returned categories (service status, SIE counts, disk, etc.), satisfying completeness for a complex tool. Agent can accurately infer what data to expect.

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?

No parameters exist (empty schema, 100% coverage). The description needs no parameter info, earning the baseline score of 4 for zero 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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('platform health briefing'), enumerates the specific data returned (18 services, SIE counts, disk usage, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_sie_queue' or 'query_uaio_status' by emphasizing it's a full one-shot snapshot.

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 states when to use ('instant one-shot snapshot') and notes required scope. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the emphasis on comprehensive coverage implicitly guides usage over more specific tools.

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