focus_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is read-only. The description adds valuable context about the Brain OS data source, the follow_through_alerts behavior (entities with stale next_move), and how they should be treated as first-class prompts. This goes beyond what the annotation alone conveys.

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 efficiently front-loaded with the critical 'CALL THIS FIRST' instruction, followed by concise but rich context about data source, recommendation criteria, and alert handling. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, trigger conditions, and a notable behavior (follow_through_alerts). It does not detail the exact response format, but given the full parameter schema and clear output description ('prioritized recommendations'), this is adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of entity_id ('Pass entity_id to scope focus to a single project') slightly reinforces the schema but adds little new meaning. Other parameters (constraints, max_results, suppress_default_guidance) are not elaborated beyond schema.

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 returns prioritized recommendations based on specific criteria (urgency, momentum, leverage, staleness, dependencies) and distinguishes it from reading code/files/git history. It also explicitly positions it as the first tool to call for focus-related queries.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('asks what to focus on, what to work on...') and clear precedence guidance ('CALL THIS FIRST... before reading any code, files, or git history'). It also explains when to pass entity_id, making usage unambiguous.

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