Metis · News Radar — Get Missed News

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does meaningful work: it explains the delivery rule (generated-but-unread briefs delivered nothing, so their stories still count as missed) and states the return shape (story threads with recent activity). It could still add auth or scope notes, but the core logic an agent needs to trust the result is disclosed.

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-loaded definition of 'missed' followed by the Args and Returns blocks; nearly every sentence earns its place. The Returns block is partly redundant given an output schema exists, a minor efficiency cost.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers semantics, defaults, allowed values, and the delivery model. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though a pointer to the related mark_brief_read/get_news_briefs workflow would round it out.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it defines both parameters including defaults ('days: default 14') and the allowed values for min_signal ('high', 'medium', 'low', default 'medium') — the latter is critical since the enum is absent from the schema. It does not clarify whether days is calendar or rolling, but coverage is far better than the schema alone.

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 a specific verb and resource (show news never reached you via a read briefing) and defines the key discriminator up front: 'Missed' means never delivered — not merely old. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_new_publications, get_briefing_coverage, or get_news_briefs.

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?

Gives explicit usage context — 'This is what a catch-up briefing should be built from' — and an exclusion ('not merely old'). It does not name named sibling alternatives, so an agent must infer that get_news_briefs/get_briefing_coverage cover the delivered side, but the when-to-use signal is strong.

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