Speakable workspace briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the format (one-line per thread, TTS-friendly spoken field plus structured rows), the ordering (attention first, then working, then finished), and scope (across all projects). It doesn't mention the sinceHours parameter's effect, but that's in schema. No side effects implied.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 it's a simple read-only briefing with one optional param, the description gives enough context: scope, ordering, return format. No output schema, so it partially describes the output. It doesn't mention specifics like pagination or limits, but that's acceptable.

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% (sinceHours documented), so baseline 3. The description doesn't mention the parameter, but doesn't need to as schema fully documents it. No additional semantics added.

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 provides a one-line-per-thread briefing across all projects, explicitly positioning it as the answer to 'what are my agents doing.' This distinguishes it from thread_digest, which is per-thread, and other sibling tools.

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 implies usage for workspace-wide status overview, with ordered sections for attention/working/finished. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the context makes it clear when to use this tool. A slight gap is no explicit 'when not to use'.

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