Daily Theme

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

The description discloses subtle behaviors that annotations cannot capture: tags are recomputed live, tags_source distinguishes live/snapshot/none, and the theme sentence may be generated before ingest finishes, making snapshot_threat_count and theme_note potentially inconsistent. It also gives trust guidance: when they disagree, trust tags. This exceeds the baseline provided by 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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences each deliver a distinct semantic point: the core data scope, the live/snapshot/no-tag distinction, and the stale-theme caveat. The most important information is front-loaded first and the description contains no wasted wording.

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?

For a no-argument read tool, the description covers ordering, time horizon, ranking rules, tie-breaking, field provenance, staleness, and a trust heuristic, leaving no call-critical question unanswered. The output schema can fill in exact field names, so no missing return-value explanation is needed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no input-schema ambiguity for a description to resolve. The description appropriately devotes its space to output semantics rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Begins with a concrete verb and resource: 'Get the recent daily landscape themes', immediately scoped by 'newest first, 14 days' and 'top 6 threat tags'. This makes the tool's identity and output unmistakable and clearly differentiates it from other daily-intel sibling tools.

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 intended use is strongly implied: call this when you need recent daily landscape themes with associated threat tags. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over similar intel-read siblings such as get_landscape_briefing or get_daily_intel_bundle, so there is no direct alternative guidance.

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