Prompt Fallback (load-briefing)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious fact — that this exists to serve clients lacking prompt support — but says nothing about what content comes back or whether the fallback behaves identically to the prompt version.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is compact, though the compactness comes partly at the cost of substance rather than being fully earned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and a zero-param read-only fallback has low complexity. Still, the description leaves the core question unanswered for an agent — what a briefing contains and why it would call this rather than a sibling read tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 mostly restates the name: 'Fallback handler for `load-briefing`' adds only the framing that it exists for tool-invocation contexts. It never says what a 'briefing' is or what the tool actually produces, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone what calling it accomplishes.

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 states a triggering condition ('when invoked as an MCP tool instead of an MCP prompt'), which is a weak usage hint. There is no guidance on when an agent should choose this over related read tools such as read_resource or mj_read_resource, and no exclusions.

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