daily_brief

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

The description fully compensates for missing annotations by disclosing: synchronous execution, per-section permission degradation behavior, page budget handling, hour clamping, and the unused samples parameter. It even notes the performance consideration and potential porting path. No explicit read-only statement, but a summary tool is implicitly non-destructive and the behavior is well specified.

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: a crisp one-line summary up front, then behavior details, then a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value, though a few extra details (e.g., roadmap reference) could be trimmed. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity without fluff.

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 moderate complexity and missing output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers behavior, parameter semantics, and error degradation. It references the return shape via 'matching the shape of this fleet's other daily_brief tools' but does not explicitly enumerate return fields, which is a minor gap. However, it clearly explains the combined nature and the summary on top, sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and excels: 'hours' is explained with clamp range, 'max_pages' with default and purpose, and 'samples' is explicitly flagged as reserved/unused. Each parameter gets meaningful semantics beyond the raw type.

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-resource pair ('combines signin_failure_stats and directory_audits into one result') and names the exact content (sign-in failures, spray suspects, admin actions). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the two source tools and contrasting with the job+poll pattern.

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 clearly implies when to use it (morning patrol, one-call summary) and differentiates from the sibling gwsadm-mcp's job+poll daily_brief. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond that sibling, but the purpose statement makes it obvious that this is the combined-synchronous variant.

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