daily_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The words 'summary', 'check', and 'preview' strongly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. The description adds context beyond the name but lacks a clear safety declaration.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. It efficiently lists the three components of the brief, making every word earn its place. This is an excellent example of brevity without sacrificing meaning.

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 that the tool has an output schema and only one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose well. The main gap is the undocumented 'since_hours' parameter, but the schema's default and the simple nature of the tool partially mitigate this. The description is complete enough for a low-complexity tool with an output schema.

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 schema describes one parameter, 'since_hours', with a default of 26, but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what 'since_hours' represents or how it affects the brief. The parameter name suggests a time window, but this is not linked to the 'morning patrol' context.

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 provides a 'Morning patrol summary' covering three specific components: enforced DENYs by rule, home-region false-positive check, and preview DENYs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enforce_denies, preview_denies, and home_region_denies, which are individual operations. The verb is implied ('summary') rather than explicit, but the scope and content are unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Morning patrol summary' implies use for a routine daily check, and 'in one call' suggests it consolidates multiple separate operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives, nor when not to use it. The context is clear but not explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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