get_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decision tree logic (staleness dominates, age independent, supersede chain), and explains null return conditions. This is transparent for a lookup tool, though it omits permission or error behaviors.

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 two sentences: first sentence states the core purpose, second sentence details the decision logic. It is concise but dense; the phrase 'D-13 decision tree' may be jargon but adds context. No wasted words.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the key return behavior (null vs. brief) and the conditions. It covers the main aspects needed to use the tool effectively, though it does not describe the brief structure or error cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how 'max_age_days' and 'allow_stale' interact, and referencing the 'target slug' concept. This enriches understanding of parameter behavior.

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 'Look up a brief by target slug' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_document_bundle or read_note, which share similar lookup semantics.

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 provides a decision tree (D-13) explaining when the tool returns null, implying usage for scenarios where staleness or age matters. It hints at when to recompile but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like compile_brief or supersede.

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