compile_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals several key behaviors: LLM resolution via a defined ladder, automatic wikilink enforcement with a footer, writing through DeliveryAdapter, and auto-superseding on target collisions. This goes beyond a simple 'compile brief' statement and helps the agent anticipate internal processing.

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 concise at three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core action, and subsequent sentences add critical behavioral details without redundancy. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors like LLM resolution and supersede but fails to mention what the agent should expect as an output or return value. It also doesn't explain error conditions or when to use optional parameters like prepared_text or sink. With 100% parameter schema coverage, some gaps are mitigated, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the input schema already provides; it mentions source documents and LLM resolution but doesn't elaborate on individual parameters like vault, target, or purpose.

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's purpose: compiling a brief from caller-supplied source documents and writing it to a sink. It uses specific verbs ('compile', 'writes') and resource ('brief'), and includes unique behaviors like LLM resolution and wikilink enforcement that distinguish it from siblings like write_note or assemble_dossier.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like assemble_dossier or write_note. It describes internal mechanisms (LLM ladder, supersede) but lacks guidance on use cases or conditions. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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