Gather the material to rewrite a recruit's brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'It calls no model: YOU are the author,' and clarifies that this is a material-gathering step, not the rewriting action itself. It does not fully address side effects, but the retrieval-oriented behavior is well conveyed.

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?

The description is slightly verbose, especially the opening metaphor about stale briefs, but it earns its place by explaining the operational context. The core behavior and follow-up workflow are stated clearly and economically.

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 is complete for a gather-style tool with no output schema: it names return contents, the rewriting constraint, the required follow-up call, and the relevant sibling tool show_persona. It doesn't detail the exact return format, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including max_words' default of 800. The description reinforces the 800-word notion but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current brief, the channel since the last compaction, and instructions for rewriting the brief. The title 'Gather the material to rewrite a recruit's brief' and the explicit workflow distinguish it from sibling tools like brief_update.

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 provides an explicit workflow: call this tool, read the returned material, write the replacement, then call brief_update({name, briefing}). It also points to show_persona for compaction timing. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' conditions, but the intended context is clear.

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