session_briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description still declares 'Read-only' and discloses the conditional scoping behavior tied to feature context, which is the main non-obvious trait. It stops short of describing result shape or what happens when no feature context is set, so the behavioral picture is clear but not complete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, followed by usage and alternatives. Every clause carries information: scope, safety, timing, and sibling routing, with no filler.

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 must carry the burden, and it largely does by characterizing the briefing contents and scope. The remaining gap is return granularity or format, which an agent cannot infer, though this is minor for a simple read-only briefing call.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing parameter-level to explain. The description does add relevant context about an environmental input (the current feature context) that changes output, which is a useful substitute for parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the continuity briefing for this session') and immediately defines the payload as 'what changed and what is binding,' which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It also names the scoping rule (current feature context when set), so an agent knows exactly what it will get.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('at the start of a session or after being away') and routes two related needs to named siblings: inbox for unread items addressed to you, decisions for the full list. This is explicit when-to-use plus alternatives, with no inference required.

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