Read a portfolio watch briefing for Automatic objectives, filtered by objective ID, to monitor progress and decide next actions.
Read portfolio watch briefing for Automatic objectives
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Agent host label | |
| brief | No | User brief for briefing lines | |
| objectiveId | No | Filter to one objective (omit for all Automatic) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.16Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' weakly implies a non-mutating call, but it says nothing about required auth, side effects, or the shape/scope of what is returned. For an unannotated tool this is a substantial gap.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description does no compensating work: it never explains the 'briefing' concept, what 'brief' and 'host' contribute, or when this flow is the right choice. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or correctly in context.
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 schema already documents host, brief, and objectiveId. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema supplies, which is exactly the baseline-3 case.
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 ('Read') and resource ('portfolio watch briefing') and scopes it to 'Automatic objectives'. It is clearer than a bare name, but 'Automatic objectives' is jargon that is not defined, and it does not differentiate from near-neighbors like aureon_get_objective_portfolio_flow or aureon_run_portfolio_watch_demo.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. The scoping phrase 'for Automatic objectives' hints at applicability but leaves the agent to guess how this differs from the many other portfolio/watch/objective tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.