Threat Intel Daily Brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is from governed sources. It does not disclose potential limitations, data freshness, or failure states, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool has 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but does not elaborate on what 'local' means or the nature of 'governed intel sources.' It relies on the schema and output schema for full context. For a daily brief tool, additional context on scope or typical usage would improve completeness.

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 does not add any additional semantic meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, so the description's lack of param details does not detract.

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 states the tool returns a local analyst threat brief from governed intel sources. It specifies a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('threat brief'), and source ('governed intel sources'), distinguishing it from siblings like intel_lookup (specific indicator lookup) or intel_sources (source listing).

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 usage for obtaining a daily brief but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like intel_lookup or audit_query. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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