memory_get_briefing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is token-aware, loads hot memories at full detail and warm digests as compressed history, and has workflow modes. No contradictions with 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the critical 'CALL THIS FIRST' instruction, then a brief explanation of what it loads, and ends with mode options. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain returns. It adequately covers the tool's workflow modes and the need to call it first. It lacks explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools (e.g., memory_onboard), but the first-call directive and mode variety provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning for the `mode` parameter by explaining each value ('brief' for handoff-first, 'normal' for onboarding, 'deep' for broad context, 'handoff-only' for fast transfer). However, it does not describe `focus_area` or `include_full_history`, and the top-level schema has no description (0% coverage). The mode explanation helps but doesn't fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 purpose: 'Token-aware briefing with workflow modes.' It specifies what it loads (hot memories + warm digests) and its role as a first-call onboarding/briefing tool. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_onboard or memory_bootstrap, the specific resource ('briefing') and modes make the purpose clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with 'CALL THIS FIRST' and describes scenarios for each mode (handoff-first, default onboarding, broad context, fast task transfer). It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the strong first-call directive and mode-specific contexts are sufficient.

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