morning_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably by declaring 'SIDE EFFECTS: None (Read-only)' and a dependency ('Requires rules.json in workspace or specified via rules_path'). It does not describe output structure, failure behavior when rules.json is absent, or whether the scan hits external services, so the disclosure is solid but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses labeled WHEN TO USE / SIDE EFFECTS / LIMITATIONS blocks that scan quickly. Sentence count is tight, though the three labels are slightly formulaic relative to the amount of content delivered.

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?

For a multi-step composite tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, safety, and the key prerequisite, which is a fair amount. However it does not indicate the shape or scope of the 'structured market data' returned, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response for such a cross-asset aggregation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter rules_path is fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the rules.json default behavior via the LIMITATIONS line, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

States specific verbs and resources ('scan user watchlist, read indicator values across symbols, extract structured market data') and scopes the output ('pre-market or daily briefing according to rules.json'). It is clearly a composite briefing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like market_get_context or watchlist_get, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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 'WHEN TO USE' clause explicitly anchors usage to 'the start of a trading day to synthesize cross-asset market bias and momentum,' which is strong temporal guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, so no exclusions are provided.

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