daily_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It specifies sorting (newest-first), age display, the folding of older problems into a count, section headers showing true totals, and that maintenance includes windows starting later today. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail beyond what any schema could imply.

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 front-loaded with 'Morning patrol summary' and then structured into logical paragraphs: content, ordering/capping behavior, and maintenance interpretation. Each sentence adds essential operational meaning; no filler or repetition. The length is justified by the need to explain non-obvious capping and maintenance semantics.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description focuses on what the agent cannot infer: section semantics, sorting, capping behavior, and the interpretation of a missing maintenance section. It also cross-links to get_maintenance_windows for extended data, making it a self-contained guide for effective use.

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 (input schema is empty), so the description has no parameters to explain. It adds useful context by mentioning ZABBIX_CATEGORIES_INI and ZABBIX_BRIEF_RECENT_HOURS as configuration influences, which helps the agent understand the tool's variability. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds a bit on top.

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 opens with 'Morning patrol summary' and clearly specifies it reports active problems (Warning and above), hosts in maintenance, and category-configured sections. This distinctively positions it as an aggregate/overview tool, differentiating it from siblings like get_problems and get_maintenance_windows.

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 provides concrete usage context, advising to cross-check maintenance entries before treating alerts as new incidents, and explicitly directs to get_maintenance_windows for a fuller maintenance picture. It lacks an explicit 'when to use this vs. alternatives' statement for the general summary purpose, but the morning patrol framing and cross-references effectively imply usage.

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