build_harness_briefs

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds a non-obvious constraint the annotations cannot express: the agent cannot record an answer because only the person can, at a terminal. That directly shapes what the agent should do after retrieving a brief and goes beyond structured data.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the list/single-id behavior and the terminal-only answer constraint both appear early. The only waste is the leading 'Read-only', which restates an annotation already declared.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the brief's contents (what is affected verbatim, every option and cost, the recommendation), so an agent knows what it will get back. Combined with the id behavior and the no-answer constraint, nothing critical is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0% — the lone 'id' property has no description at all — so the description must carry the meaning. 'Optional id: one brief in full' successfully explains both the optionality and the effect of supplying it (narrowing from the list to a single complete brief), which is otherwise unknowable from 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?

States a concrete resource — the decisions waiting for a person — and specifies it returns each as a full brief with a defined structure. The verb is implied by the framing ('show the brief') rather than a clean verb+resource pair, but an agent can tell this lists/renders decision briefs rather than acting on them.

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' is a real usage instruction for the agent's conversational behavior, which is useful. However, it never contrasts with the closest siblings (build_harness_next, build_harness_status) or states when to request the full list versus a single id, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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