briefing

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

The description lists the types of information returned (goal health, pending decisions, tasks, activity, recommendation) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. With no annotations present, the description provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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: the first explains functionality, the second provides usage guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded with critical information.

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?

The description covers purpose and usage well but completely omits parameter semantics, which are needed for correct invocation given 4 optional parameters. Without an output schema, more detail on return values would also help. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 input schema defines 4 parameters (scope, goal_id, plan_id, recent_window_hours) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning, defaults, or valid values of any parameter, forcing the agent to infer from names 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?

The description clearly states the tool aggregates key mission control information in one call ('goal health summary, pending decisions, my tasks, recent activity, and a top recommendation'), and it positions itself as the single read for Cowork live artifacts, distinguishing it from siblings like goal_state or plan_analysis.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this as 'the single read for Cowork live artifacts and the autopilot's first call,' providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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