get_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the brief must be accessible to the user. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the full contents of a specific brief') and specifies key components. There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral context. It's minimally viable for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, but doesn't fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and results.

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 the single parameter 'brief_id' fully documented in the schema as 'Brief ID from list_briefs'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full contents of a specific brief', specifying what information is included (scorecard, strategy score, rendered sections). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_briefs' by focusing on a single brief's details rather than listing multiple briefs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other content-retrieval tools like 'get_company' or 'get_financials'.

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 implies usage when detailed brief content is needed, referencing 'brief_id from list_briefs' in the schema, which suggests using 'list_briefs' first. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_company_narrative' or 'research_report', and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID requirement.

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