lyon_personal_briefing

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

Discloses that no notifications are sent and that triggering/delivery is client responsibility. However, with no annotations, it lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or data freshness.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose in the first. The second sentence adds important behavioral context. Could be slightly improved by front-loading parameter hints.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not elaborate on what the briefing contains beyond the brief list. Input parameters are insufficiently described, leaving gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description only vaguely references 'profil local' and fails to explain the 'at' and 'compare_with_previous' parameters. Most parameter semantics are missing.

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 provides a personal briefing based on a local profile, mentioning specific elements (usual route, alerts, Vélo'v). It distinguishes itself by not sending notifications, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like lyon_environment_brief.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. The description implies use with a local profile but lacks explicit context or alternatives.

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