bridge_brief_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses little: "latest" and "72h Corrections" hint at a temporal window but the term "Corrections" is never defined, and nothing is said about return shape, item count, or auth needs. It does not contradict anything, but it leaves most behavioral traits unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal terseness.

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-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin. Undefined jargon ("72h Corrections") and unexplained enum options leave the agent guessing about what it will actually retrieve.

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 for both undocumented parameters and it largely fails. "ORG/TEAM" loosely maps to the team param, but the kind enum values (DAILY_BRIEF, ACCOMPLISHMENT_DIGEST, TEAM_ROLLUP) are never explained, and what "72h Corrections" means relative to kind is unclear.

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 ("Fetch") and resource ("Morning Briefs and 72h Corrections") with ORG/TEAM scope, so an agent can grasp the intent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from any of the many sibling bridge_* tools, leaving differentiation to name inference alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The word "latest" weakly implies a recency-based read, but the description never says when to pick this over bridge_context or the other siblings.

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