daily_brief

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: problem severity filtering, chronological sorting, folding of old problems into counts, configurable recency window, and section headers showing true totals. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention auth requirements, but the reporting nature is clear.

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, starting with a concise summary ('Morning patrol summary') and then elaborating on categories and problem handling. Each sentence adds meaningful detail, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers output structure (sections, sorting, folding), configuration via ZABBIX_CATEGORIES_INI, and the recency window. Given that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description is nearly complete. A minor gap is the lack of explicit side-effect or usage-context statements, but these are not critical for a reporting tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4.

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 function: it reports active problems (Warning and above) and organizes them into categories. The verb 'reports' and resource 'active problems' are specific, and the detailed category structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_problems and health_check.

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 as a daily summary ('Morning patrol summary'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as get_problems or health_check. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, making the usage context implied rather than explicit.

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