dossier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that the tool returns a third-person brief and includes the push-back mandate, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety or other behavioral constraints beyond what is implied.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key behaviors (third-person framing, push-back mandate). Every sentence adds critical information without 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?

The description covers the tool's primary function, return content, and important contextual details (push-back mandate, optional addendums, environment overrides). With no output schema, it provides sufficient understanding, though it could be more explicit about output format and effects of all optional parameters.

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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining how each parameter integrates into the dossier loading process (e.g., role appends a role brief, model and client override environment variables). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Load' and the specific resource 'Art's operating brief'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it returns standards, taste, and constraints framed for non-Art agents, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explains the tool's purpose: to provide Art's operating brief for worker bodies. It includes a specific behavioral mandate (push-back). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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