Trigger brief generation for a specific action. Returns whether the brief was already ready or has been queued or is already generating in the background.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actionId | Yes | UUID of the action to generate the brief for. | |
| briefStyle | No | Optional brief style override. Defaults to best_fit and must respect project content preferences. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the tool may trigger background processing and reports whether the brief is ready, queued, or already generating. This gives meaningful behavioral context, though it does not mention failure/error behavior.
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 and front-loaded: it states the trigger action and then the value of the return across three states. No additional filler or redundant restatement appears.
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 simple trigger tool with two documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the invocation's effect and the possible return state. It covers the asynchronous background aspect that is not present in the structured fields.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is a 3. The description does not add further parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's UUID and style details, which is acceptable because the schema already documents both parameters completely.
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 identifies the specific action (brief generation for an action) and clarifies the return semantics: it returns whether the brief is ready, queued, or already generating. This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like devtune_get_action_brief.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus devtune_get_action_brief or other action-related siblings. The status-oriented return implies usage for requesting or checking generation, but no alternative or condition is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
