get_generation_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful content context (the brief's structure) and a critical constraint ('Only claim what the facts_inventory proves'), but does not explicitly disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is typical for a read-only getter, but the description does not confirm it.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and a key rule. The first sentence is slightly awkward with the ellipsis and all-caps 'YOU', but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the tool is a simple getter with an output schema (presumably detailing the brief structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (finding_id, asset_type). It mentions 'facts_inventory' but that is part of the output, not a parameter. The agent is left without any guidance on what values to provide.

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 structured brief containing job keywords, facts inventory, style, and honesty rules for drafting a CV/cover letter. This specific resource is distinct from sibling tools like get_profile or get_asset_file, and the intended use is explicit.

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 phrase 'YOU draft the cv/cover_letter from' implies the brief is to be used as the basis for drafting, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or alternative tool names. Usage context is only implied.

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