daily_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the strict threshold logic, output tiers (CRITICAL, WARNING, OK), and return format (Markdown). It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only aggregate, no destructive behavior is expected. Missing explicit read-only declaration, but sufficient transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for args and output tiers. It is front-loaded with purpose and provides necessary detail without excess. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, output tiers, and return format. It is complete for effective use.

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 0%, so description must explain the parameter. It does so thoroughly: defines offline_threshold, default 10.0, explains the '>' comparison, and gives example 0.0. No other parameters exist, so full coverage.

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 runs a morning AP health check across all sites, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'health_check' (likely broader) and 'list_aps' (no aggregation). Output tiers further clarify 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 implies use for routine health checks, but lacks explicit instructions on when to use versus siblings. However, the context of 'morning health check' and aggregated output provides clear usage context.

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