daily_brief

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries real added burden and delivers: sorting (newest-first / value high-to-low), capping with 'showing N of TOTAL' headers, folding of problems older than the ZABBIX_BRIEF_RECENT_HOURS window, and the deliberate exclusion of disabled trigger/host/item problems. These are substantive behavioral traits not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organized into coherent paragraphs covering problems, categories, capping, and maintenance. Information density is high and each sentence carries weight, though the length is on the heavier side for a no-argument tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still fully covers what sections appear, how they are ordered and capped, what is excluded, and how to follow up on omissions. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description documents configuration knobs (ZABBIX_CATEGORIES_INI, ZABBIX_BRIEF_RECENT_HOURS) that shape output, which adds meaning beyond an empty schema, though these are environment settings rather than callable arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Morning patrol summary') and then enumerates exactly what it reports: active problems (Warning and above), hosts in maintenance, and one section per configured category. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_problems or get_maintenance_windows, which it references as narrower alternatives.

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?

It gives implicit when-to-use context ('morning patrol summary') and explicit cross-referencing behavior: check the In Maintenance section before treating another tool's alert as a new incident, and points to get_problems(include_disabled=True) and get_maintenance_windows for the cases this tool omits. It never explicitly states when to call daily_brief versus just calling get_problems directly, so it falls short of full when/when-not framing.

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