daily_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It details the checks performed, thresholds, output tiers (CRITICAL, WARNING, OK), and default explanations. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any side effects, but the nature of a health check implies no mutations.

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 for checks and output tiers, and a separate Args section. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall efficient.

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 complexity, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the main checks, thresholds, and output tiers. It could mention idempotency or side effects, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand behavior.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: since_hours default rationale (prev 15:00 for 09:00 run) and ip_failure_threshold triggers a WARNING. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Run a morning Keycloak health check', specifying the verb and resource. It lists specific checks (login stats, sessions, password events, admin events) which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 outlines output tiers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over specific siblings like get_admin_events or get_login_stats. No direct alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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