Daily Intel Bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the one-shot aggregation and date-scoping behavior. It doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or the exact return format, but with robust annotations and an output schema present, the bar for additional transparency is reasonably met.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core concept ('one-shot what happened bundle') then enumerates the four included sections. Zero filler, every phrase earns its place, and defaults are mentioned inline naturally.

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, an idempotent read-only profile from annotations, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description competently frames what's included in the bundle. It could add a touch more about the exact composition or ordering of sections, but it's complete enough for an agent to decide whether to invoke this aggregation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds the date default ('latest') and the bundle-composition context, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the param explanatory burden.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('one-shot what happened bundle') naming specific component sections: the day's debrief, platform stats, top recent threats, and correlations overview. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_recent_threats, get_platform_stats, and get_latest_debrief, which each cover only a subset.

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 establishes the primary use case ('one-shot what happened bundle') and default behaviors (latest by default, or pass date), which implies when to reach for it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_threat_bundle, get_landscape_briefing, or get_latest_debrief, nor state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single deep dive on one threat).

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