relay_get_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the default 24-hour window when neither since nor as_of is given, and that open conflicts are surfaced as decisions to make. It implies read-only but never states no side effects, and says nothing about result limits or volume.

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?

Three tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded, then return contents, then parameter guidance. No sentence is redundant and the ordering matches how an agent would act on it.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does describe the content categories (recent writes/decisions plus open conflicts). It stops short of describing the result structure or any size limits, which is the only meaningful gap for a read tool with fully documented params.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that my_name is your own written_by value (so your own facts are excluded) and that since can be substituted with the as_of value from a prior briefing, plus the 24-hour default the schema omits.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns what other tools wrote or decided since you last looked, plus open conflicts. This is clearly distinct from sibling reads like relay_get_current_state or relay_get_context, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Call this at the START of a session" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is strong usage guidance. It does not say when NOT to use it or which sibling (relay_get_context, relay_get_current_state) to prefer for other situations, so the alternative-routing is left implicit.

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