briefing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by detailing what the tool returns (user profile, recent episodes, key facts, foresights) and explicitly mentions a fallback behavior: 'When formal profile memories are unavailable, briefing may surface explicit fallback metadata and label it as such.' This goes beyond a simple read tool description, though it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. It is transparent about its output and edge-case handling, so a 4 is warranted.

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, with about four sentences, each adding necessary information: core purpose, usage timing, return contents, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering essential context. It explains the return structure (user profile, episodes, facts, foresights) and notes the fallback scenario, which is important for agent expectations. It does not elaborate on time-range parameters or max_items, but these are well-documented in the schema. Minor gaps like error behavior or performance limitations are not addressed, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively, earning a 4.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It implies a 'memory space' maps to space_id, but this is already evident from the schema. Since the description does not compensate or elaborate on parameter usage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get a structured context briefing for a memory space.' It specifies the resource (memory space) and the output type (structured briefing), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or fetch_history by framing it as a session-start summary. The phrase 'restore high-value context quickly' makes the intent unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Call this at the start of a new session to restore high-value context quickly,' providing a clear use case. It also claims it is 'the fastest way to catch up on the most important currently available context,' which helps an agent decide when to use it. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough to warrant a 4.

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