wiki_get_briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (curated set of related items) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The name implies a get operation, but the description lacks explicit behavioral notes beyond the output content.

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?

The description is two paragraphs: first explaining what the tool does, second giving usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The code prefix 'DF-310' may be unnecessary for an agent, but overall it is efficient and well-structured with minimal waste.

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 the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (ADRs, patterns, runbooks, intents, parallel work, knowledge gaps). It references the UI tab for additional context. For a retrieval tool of this complexity, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention any pagination or size limits.

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?

The only parameter 'flowId' is fully documented in the schema with description 'Flow id to build the briefing for' (100% coverage). The description does not add any extra semantics like format, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states it returns a curated set of related items (ADRs, patterns, etc.) for a specific flow, with a clear verb 'get' and resource 'briefing'. It mentions that this is the same data as the UI's Knowledge-Tab, which provides context, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wiki_get_flow_context or wiki_get_project_context, though the usage hint helps.

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 explicitly says 'Use this in planning + before review→done' and explains the purpose: to make sure the flow's plan respects the existing wiki and to find gaps that should be closed, preferably via 'extend' referencing knowledge_check_resolve. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and an alternative action.

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