List targeted briefs

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'Returns brief metadata only, never the rendered Markdown', exact matching for targetAgent/status, AND semantics for tag filters, and that all matches are returned unless limit is set. These details are not present in the annotations and help the agent understand output and filter behavior.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then efficiently list behavioral details. There is no redundancy with the schema; every sentence contributes essential guidance.

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 output schema, the description clarifies the return type ('brief metadata only, never the rendered Markdown'), ordering, filter semantics, and limit behavior. Combined with the detailed parameter schema and safety annotations, the agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema (e.g., limit 'unset returns every match', since 'accepted but not applied by the MCP server'). The description's filter statements ('match exactly', 'requires every listed tag') mostly reinforce existing schema text without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 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 starts with 'List targeted briefs in this store, newest first'—a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further clarifies the purpose by stating 'to find a brief ID before reading one with get_targeted_brief', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_targeted_brief or get_brief.

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?

It explicitly names the intended use case ('to find a brief ID before reading one with get_targeted_brief') and references the alternative tool. This provides clear when-to-use guidance, and the description also explains when a limit would be set to bound results.

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