stl_report_brief

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: it reports absences rather than silently passing them, and mentions that all inputs are optional. This gives users a clear idea of how the tool behaves at runtime.

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, consisting of two well-organized sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides supplementary details about composition, optionality, and behavior. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a composite report tool, mentioning what it aggregates and its role as a first diagnostic step. However, it omits any explanation of the 'snapshot' parameter, which could be a meaningful gap for users deciding whether to provide it. Overall, it is mostly complete for the tool's intended 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 schema has one parameter 'snapshot' with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or usage. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it only says 'every input is optional' without clarifying what snapshot does. This leaves the parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 purpose: to provide the current state of the feed in one call and recommend the next command. It also explicitly mentions it composes coverage, assumption suite, realtime health, and web drift, and positions it as a starting point for diagnosing issues, distinguishing it from specialized 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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Start here if you do not know what is wrong.' It also notes that every input is optional and that it works even on a machine that has only fetched the static feed, helping users understand its applicability in minimal setups.

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