precedent_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add value by disclosing what the brief contains, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens when goal is omitted versus supplied, or how the brief is assembled.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the trigger, which is good, but it is a single unpunctuated fragment with a run-on list of eight comma-separated items, several of which ('the work loop', 'hidden asks') are cryptic without further explanation. Some list items earn their place; others read as jargon shorthand.

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 only 2 parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description's itemized content list does most of the necessary work. However, it leaves the 'k' parameter wholly unexplained and gives no sense of what the returned brief looks like structurally, which leaves a real gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 only 50%: 'goal' is documented in the schema, but 'k' carries no description anywhere in the definition. The description never mentions 'k' or what it controls (presumably how many items per section), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap and adds essentially no meaning beyond 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?

The description names a concrete artifact ('a brief built from the user's own history') and enumerates its parts (Definition of Done, hidden asks, closest past prompts, lessons, related notes, working profile, queue, work loop), which is far more specific than the name alone. It is written as a fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling precedent_log, so it falls short of a 5.

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 opening clause 'Before starting a delegated goal' gives an explicit timing trigger that an agent can act on without inference. It stops short of 5 because it offers no exclusions and does not name alternatives (for example precedent_log or context) that an agent might otherwise pick.

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