briefing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the composite contents of the result, which is meaningfully behavioral. However, it omits any statement of read-only/cost/latency behavior and does not say whether the call is expensive or how results are sized, which matters for a multi-source aggregation.

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, front-loaded with the payload contents, followed by the routing advice — little waste. The closing clause 'which grep cannot assemble' is marginally redundant with the preceding 'Prefer this over grepping'.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the aggregation's scope and when to choose it. The one real gap is the undocumented k parameter, which is left entirely unexplained.

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% and there are two parameters, yet the description only indirectly implies that 'query' is the topic ('scoped to the topic') and says nothing about 'k' (result count, default 5). With no schema descriptions and no compensating text, an agent cannot know what k controls.

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 names a concrete composite deliverable — hybrid search hits, their 1-hop neighborhood, open questions, and unjustified decisions scoped to a topic — which is far more specific than the bare name 'briefing'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling primitives it bundles (search_nodes, neighbors, open_questions, decisions_without_rationale) by declaring it returns them together in one call.

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 gives an explicit 'prefer this over grepping graph files for "what do we know about X"' directive plus the reason (grep cannot assemble nodes with neighborhood and gaps), which is clear usage guidance and an alternative. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it overlaps with (search_nodes, neighbors, open_questions), so routing among them is left to inference.

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