brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by clarifying that reading never creates or mutates a Brief and that creation happens through a handoff update instead. It does not describe output shape or size of the Brief.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then the read-only guarantee; every sentence carries distinct information and none is filler.

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 zero-required-param read tool with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing usage and mutation semantics. The main gap is what the returned Brief actually contains, which is left entirely implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the omit/provide `topic` behavior nearly verbatim from the schema and adds nothing about `space` or `session` beyond what is already documented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the current Space Brief,' with the scope (Space) and mode (topic append) named. It implicitly separates itself from update_brief by asserting reads never create or mutate, but it does not name or contrast a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear trigger conditions — resuming project work or when the user asks to catch up — plus an explicit rule for when to omit vs. supply `topic`. No alternatives are named (e.g., update_brief, capture), so there is no exclusion guidance.

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