get_creative_briefRead one public structured design problem, constraints, tags, and its response snacks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief_id | Yes | UUID of the creative brief to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| problem | Yes | ||
| responses | Yes | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| constraints | Yes | ||
| response_count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that the brief is public and structured, and that it returns a single brief. It does not address auth expectations or response shape beyond the output schema, but nothing contradicts the 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?
One sentence, no filler, with the operation and content front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.
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 read-only single-brief getter with one well-documented parameter and a provided output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only small gap is the domain term 'response snacks' is unexplained, though sibling naming makes it inferable.
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% with brief_id documented as a UUID, so the description need not repeat it. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, hence the baseline 3.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('one public structured design problem'), and enumerates the payload (constraints, tags, response snacks). It is immediately distinguishable from create_creative_brief and other siblings by its read-only scope.
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 implies the natural use case—retrieve an existing creative brief by id—but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over create_creative_brief or get_snack, and no exclusions. For a one-param getter this is acceptable but not actively instructive.
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.
Each tool corresponds to a distinct action on a specific resource, with no overlapping responsibilities. For example, get_snack, get_snack_lineage, get_snack_project, and get_snack_relay each serve clearly separated purposes, and similarly for the root-related and signing-related tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with a clear and predictable structure. The verbs (claim, comment, create, discover, get, publish, read, etc.) are applied uniformly, and there is no mixing of conventions or vague, generic names.
With 35 tools, the surface is significantly larger than the typical well-scoped server (3-15 tools) and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth might be justified by the platform's complex domain, the sheer number makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle operations for the main entities: registration, publishing, reading, signing, voting, following, and ledger management. Missing operations like delete are explicitly by design (e.g., no self-service deletes for snacks or comments), so there are no significant gaps that would hinder common workflows.