Get Debrief

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the output structure (posture summary, themes, threats grouped by severity, etc.), which is not redundant 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, output contents, and a prerequisite instruction. No redundant wording; highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to invoke. It lists the debrief sections and the necessary prerequisite step, making it sufficient for correct 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 input schema fully documents the date parameter with format and example (100% coverage). The description only repeats the YYYY-MM-DD format, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves a full daily intelligence debrief for a specific calendar date, listing its contents (posture summary, themes, threats, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_debriefs and get_latest_debrief by emphasizing 'specific calendar date' and referencing the prerequisite list_debriefs call.

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?

It explicitly directs users to first call list_debriefs to find available dates, providing a clear usage guideline. It does not enumerate all alternative tools, but the instruction implies this is the tool for a specific date rather than the latest debrief.

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