asana_morning_brief

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

The description adds notable behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it states the tool is built on the search API and caps at 100 by due date, defines blocked tasks, and notes it returns only incomplete tasks with a summary count. This helps the agent understand edge cases and interpretation.

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 dense and front-loaded with 'COMPOSITE: one-call daily brief', followed by behavior, usage, and a key limitation. Each clause contributes useful information, though the long parentheticals make it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns; it mentions buckets and a summary count but does not specify whether the response is structured task objects with GIDs or a human-readable brief. The 100-task cap is disclosed, but return format ambiguity remains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the user default and horizon_days behavior but adds no new parameter-level semantics; workspace is only indirectly referenced. Examples like 'user=<gid>' reinforce the schema rather than extend 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 clearly identifies the tool as a composite one-call daily brief that buckets incomplete tasks into overdue, due_today, upcoming, and blocked. This differentiates it from sibling tools like asana_search_tasks or asana_list_tasks by emphasizing its aggregated, bucketed nature.

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 phrase 'one-call daily brief' implies use for a quick morning overview, and the user scoping instructions are clear, but there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or guidance on when not to use it. The 100-task cap hints at a limitation but does not direct the agent to a more exhaustive sibling.

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