daily_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only (a briefing) and lists the data categories included. It also notes 'Pro feature,' which signals access restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it discuss data freshness, rate limits, or behavior if no apps exist. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 with no filler. The first sentence lists the content categories, and the second sentence adds value by highlighting the 'one call' benefit and the 'Pro feature' caveat. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter, the description provides the core purpose, the scope ('across all apps'), and the key content areas. It does not explain return format or prerequisites beyond 'Pro feature,' but the absence of an output schema and low complexity make this acceptable. A 4 reflects it is nearly complete, with minor room for added detail.

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 schema describes the only parameter 'days' with its meaning and default ('Look back N days for reviews (default 3)'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function with specific verb+resource: it provides a morning briefing aggregating version status, recent reviews, rejections, and action items across all apps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like review_status or list_reviews, which focus on individual areas. The phrase 'One call for full situational awareness' further reinforces its unique cross-app aggregation purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when wanting a single, comprehensive overview of app health ('One call for full situational awareness'). It implies a preference over making multiple calls, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is more than no guidance but less than explicit when-not/alternatives, warranting a 4.

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