Daily Intel Bundle

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those guarantees. It adds behavior context by stating the latest-day default, the date override behavior, and the aggregate contents returned in the bundle. This is useful supplementary context and is fully consistent with 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted text, and it front-loads the tool's core purpose and composition. The second sentence is a high-value routing signal that helps the agent decide what to do after receiving the bundle. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 zero required parameters, a rich output schema, full schema description coverage, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the response will contain, how to customize it via date, and what to do next for more detail on a threat.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description only needs to add marginal semantic value. It adds 'latest by default, or pass date' for date and summarizes top_n as 'top threats as LEAN summary rows,' but this mostly restates default semantics that a capable agent can already derive from the 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 identifies the tool as a one-shot aggregate 'what happened' bundle composed of a debrief, platform stats, top recent threats, and correlations. It names a concrete resource category that an agent can distinguish from single-purpose sibling tools like get_debrief or get_correlations, and it even points to a complementary sibling, get_threat, for drill-down.

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 phrase 'One-shot what happened bundle' gives a clear contextual use case: use this for a consolidated daily situational snapshot in a single call. It does not exhaustively contrast this with similar aggregate siblings such as get_landscape_briefing or get_threat_bundle, but it does provide useful routing guidance by saying to use get_threat(id) when more detail on a listed threat is needed.

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