gnosys_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return format (Markdown, not JSON) and the precedence/default semantics. It doesn't explicitly say there are no side effects, but the read-only annotations make that clear.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct payload: output contents first, then selector precedence and defaults, then the sibling disambiguation. No repeated or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description still names the return format and its components, and the selector/default rules cover the main invocation ambiguity. Nothing material is missing for a zero-required-param 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: projectId precedence over projectRoot, cwd auto-detection, and that all=true silently ignores both selectors. That precedence rule is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise trip on.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Summarize a project as Markdown') and enumerates the output contents (memory counts, categories, 7-day activity, top tags, summary). It also names the distinguishing sibling, gnosys_dashboard, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly gives selector precedence (projectId over projectRoot), fallback behavior (detect from projectRoot or cwd), and the all=true override that ignores both selectors with a stated default of false. It also routes the agent away to gnosys_dashboard for system health/graph stats/provider status.

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