build_harness_briefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only' up front and states the critical constraint that the agent cannot record an answer — only the person can, at a terminal. It does not describe return volume or pagination, but the safety and permission profile is clearly disclosed.

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 'Read-only.' lead is front-loaded, and the remaining sentences each add distinct information (brief contents, id behavior, the answering constraint). Dense but every clause earns its place; the parenthetical listing of brief contents is slightly long but useful.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, how the id parameter changes behavior, and the key constraint on recording answers. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though the relationship to sibling harness tools is left implicit.

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, and it does: 'Optional id: one brief in full' explains both the optionality and the behavioral difference between passing an id (one brief) versus omitting it (all briefs). This is meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type in the 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 states a clear resource: 'the decisions waiting for the person, each as a full brief,' and enumerates the brief's contents (what is affected, options and costs, recommendation). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like build_harness_next or build_harness_status, but the resource returned is specific enough to identify the tool.

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?

'Show the brief instead of asking a question' gives a clear directive for when to invoke it, and 'You cannot record an answer: only the person can, at a terminal' establishes the boundary of use. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the answering path, so it is context rather than explicit routing.

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