project_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning 'schema activation, Bartlett 1932' and the output sections, but it does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or behavior when no related memories exist.

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 is front-loaded with the primary purpose and lists key output sections. The cryptic 'schema activation, Bartlett 1932' may not earn its place, but overall it is concise without significant fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and parameter usage. It states the tool assembles a brief and lists sections, but it does not describe the brief's format, how parameters are used, or edge cases like missing memories, leaving significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, title, memory_ids). It vaguely references 'related memories' but never clarifies how memory_ids or limit affect execution, or that title is the project title.

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 ('Assemble') and a distinct resource ('a project brief from related memories and intentions') with a clear output structure (background, requirements, risks, pending actions). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'project_risk' or 'plan_tracker' by the comprehensive brief output.

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 when to use the tool—when a project brief is needed from related memories and intentions—but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing this over similar tools like 'life_story' or 'session_summary'.

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