daily_brief

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it reuses a cached folder scan, returns an error object on failure, mentions coverage/caps caveats (capped flags, enumeration limited to co-admin visible content), and explains default behavior (top defaults to 5 for compact summary).

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 bullet points and clear sections, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly lengthy but each part adds value (purpose, behavioral notes, caveats).

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format. It mentions an error object on failure but does not describe the success response structure (e.g., fields, format of 'access' and 'exposure' data). This is a notable gap given the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'since_hours' (last N hours) and 'top' (defaults to 5 for compact summary) but only vaguely states 'Args mirror the underlying tools' for other parameters like max_depth, max_events, max_folders, lacking individual explanations.

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 it provides a combined brief of external access events and external-sharing state (enumeration). It distinguishes from siblings like external_access_events and external_collaborators by explicitly saying it combines two underlying tools into one call.

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 provides clear context on when to use it (e.g., morning DLP brief, reuses cached folder scan alongside other enumeration tools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name, only implying they are the individual underlying tools.

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