generate_fieldwork_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'read-only fieldwork status' implies the tool does not mutate data, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any other behaviors such as output format, side effects, or whether permissions are required. The safety hint earns a baseline score but lacks depth.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the important read-only qualifier. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete for correct selection among many similar sibling tools. It does not explain what a 'fieldwork brief' contains, how it differs from other summaries, or what the output will look like (no output schema). The agent has insufficient context to choose this tool over summarize_fieldwork_status or other related tools.

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%: the single optional parameter 'profile' is fully described in the schema as 'Optional configured Survey Solutions profile name.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a compact fieldwork brief from current read-only fieldwork status.' It clearly indicates the tool produces a brief from status, which is a distinct purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like summarize_fieldwork_status or summarize_interviewer_activity, which also deal with fieldwork summaries, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that summarize fieldwork status, the agent receives no explicit condition or exclusion to select this tool over summarize_fieldwork_status. Usage is only implied by the name and description, which is insufficient.

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