standard_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'retrieval-first' and doesn't run SHAP/drift computations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second clarifies behavior, the third sets context, and the parameter explanations are concise and necessary. Zero wasted content.

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 is moderately complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or dependencies, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: model_id and run_id as optional filters, and top_cases as the maximum number of highlighted samples. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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 generates a predefined briefing from persisted batch results, specifying it's retrieval-first and doesn't run computations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reusable briefings rather than analysis, comparison, or listing functions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 context ('reusable daily/weekly briefing entry point for stakeholders who ask a similar set of baseline questions') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_models or summarize_model. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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