get_briefing_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the return format (summary text and counts) and a concrete example, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this aggregates across all data sources, what time window it covers, or any side effects or dependencies.

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 brief and well-organized with a heading and example. The 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant with the output schema existing, which slightly reduces the score, but the overall structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 0 parameters, an output schema present, and siblings like get_daily_briefing/get_morning_briefing, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could clarify how it differs from get_daily_briefing and get_morning_briefing to fully resolve tool-selection ambiguity, but the core info is present.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params), so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining the exact output format ('3 meetings, 2 pending replies, 1 overdue task' with summary text and counts), which is the only semantic dimension applicable here.

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 it retrieves a one-line summary of the day's status, with a concrete example format. It distinguishes from detailed summary tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_morning_briefing or get_daily_briefing.

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 says it's 'perfect for a quick status check' and contrasts 'without the full details', which implies it's for quick checks versus detailed briefings. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_daily_briefing or get_morning_briefing for when full details are needed.

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