List research intelligence briefs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool lists persisted artifacts and orders them newest first, which strongly implies a non-mutating read, but it does not explicitly address side effects, pagination, filter combination, or access considerations.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the action and resource with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, though the brevity comes at the cost of contextual detail.

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 no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and six optional filter parameters, six words are insufficient for an agent to know how to combine filters, what the intended selection criteria are, or when to prefer this tool over siblings. The output schema covers return shape, but usage and parameter context are missing.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter semantics. Filtering behavior for start_date, end_date, brief_type, project_name, trigger_type, and limit is left entirely to inference from parameter names and hard-coded schema constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persisted intelligence brief artifacts'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_research_activities and list_candidate_intelligence, which target different artifact types.

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 implies a read/list use case by saying 'List persisted intelligence brief artifacts', but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as record_research_intelligence_brief. An agent must infer usage from the name and the verb rather than receiving direct routing help.

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