daily_brief

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: strict threshold comparison (>), output tiers (CRITICAL, WARNING, OK), and return format (Markdown). It discloses important details beyond a simple health check label.

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, Output tiers, and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and informative.

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 and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it covers all necessary input, behavioral logic, and output format. It distinguishes itself from 15 sibling tools by presenting a unique aggregated health check.

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 only parameter, offline_threshold, is thoroughly explained: it's a percentage, uses strict comparison, default is 10, and passing 0 flags any offline AP. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, which only has type and default.

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 purpose: run a morning AP health check by fetching all access points and aggregating online/offline status by site, flagging those exceeding a threshold. This is distinct from sibling tools that target individual entities.

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 usage for a morning health check and provides context for the threshold, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings. It offers clear guidance on parameter usage.

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