get_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contains synthesis, enrichment, signals, and keywords, but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, or any side effects. The verb 'get' implies a safe read operation, but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function and key output contents. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one param and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It could mention the format or structure of the detail, but the list of included components provides sufficient context for the tool's complexity.

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 'brief_id' parameter already described as 'Brief ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage detail for the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Get full brief detail including synthesis, enrichment, signals, and keywords' clearly identifies the tool as fetching detailed brief data and lists specific component categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_briefs (which likely returns summaries) and delete_brief, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 needing the full brief content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or specific complementary tools are mentioned, leaving the usage context only implicitly defined.

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