brief_get

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

The readOnlyHint already establishes the tool is safe to call, and the description adds useful behavior: the output is deterministic, local, and generated on request rather than by schedule. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it. Return details are covered by the output schema.

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 tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the scheduling contrast in a short secondary clause. Every phrase contributes meaning and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only tool with no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. The only meaningful omission is the optional 'now' parameter, but it has a sensible default and is not required for normal invocation, so the definition is still largely complete.

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%, so the description needed to explain the lone 'now' parameter — its format, meaning, and how null behaves. The word 'deterministic' hints that 'now' controls the evaluation time, but the description never explicitly mentions or documents the parameter, leaving a real invocation gap.

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 specific verb ('Render') and a distinct resource ('the deterministic local morning brief'), and clarifies the invocation mode ('on demand, not just on schedule'). This gives the tool an identity separate from sibling tools like agenda_get or journal_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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: whenever an on-demand morning brief is needed instead of waiting for the scheduled one. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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