get_daily_briefing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains what the briefing includes (due items, review topics, weak areas) and implies a read-only aggregation, but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or whether it requires prior login. The output content is disclosed, but deeper behavioral details are absent.

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 one succinct sentence, front-loading the main purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and its role as an aggregate briefing, the description adequately covers the main components and the proactive session-start context. It does not detail output formatting, but for a briefing tool this is arguably unnecessary; the listed item types provide enough for an agent to present the result.

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% for the single parameter (studentId), providing a basic 'The student ID' description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('daily academic summary'), and enumerates the content (due soon, review today, weak topics, urgent items). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_review_due or get_deadline_timeline by presenting a consolidated proactive briefing.

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 instructs to call 'at session start for a proactive briefing', providing clear timing context. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the proactive briefing framing effectively implies it precedes more targeted queries.

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