brainfile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool retrieves a weekly update about improvements, implying it is read-only and idempotent. The retention mechanic context adds behavioral insight. It does not explicitly state it is a read operation, but the description's content suffices for transparency.

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 two sentences, but the first sentence is quite long and includes specific details about the feed content. The second sentence concisely explains the retention mechanic. Every sentence adds value, but the first could be slightly more streamlined.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned (the freshness feed entry) and why it exists (retention mechanic). It does not detail the format of the feed, but that is reasonable for a non-technical description.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing what the tool returns (the weekly feed entry with specific content), which is valuable context for an AI agent.

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 specifies it gets the 'real Brainfile freshness feed entry' which is a weekly update. It provides specific content details (improvements to businesses and Claude Code), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_starter_file' or 'list_pack_contents', though the content description implies differentiation.

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 mentions it is a 'retention mechanic' and that a paid license keeps the newest feed flowing, which hints at when to use. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description adds key traits: 'Full text, no account needed', and lists files. Does not mention rate limits or authentication, but tool is read-only and non-destructive, so adequate.

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?

Two sentences; first states purpose, second lists files and usage note. No filler, front-loaded with key info.

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?

Complete for a simple tool: explains what it retrieves, how to use the parameter, and lists contents. No output schema needed given clarity.

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 covers 100% with enum, but description adds valuable context: omission returns all three files. This goes beyond the schema's individual file descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('get') and resource ('starter files'), names specific files, and explains behavior. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_freshness_sample.

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?

Indicates when to use (on-ramp for personalization, no account needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling tools are distinct, making context clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that paid role packs are listed but locked with an unlock URL, and that starter files are fetchable via MCP. It transparently describes what the tool includes and excludes, though it could clarify the output format.

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 quite long and enumerates many items (v1 pattern files with descriptions), which adds detail but reduces conciseness. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured as a list, but some redundancy exists (e.g., 'listed but locked'). Overall, it is informative but could be more concise.

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 explains the high-level content (v1 files with descriptions, paid packs locked) but does not specify the response format (e.g., list, JSON). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate for format, which it lacks. It is fairly complete for a listing tool but could be clearer about what the agent receives.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is perfectly covered. The description does not need to add parameter info and does not, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies for 0 parameters.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'full Brainfile pack manifest', enumerating specific components (v1 pattern files, paid role packs). It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it provides a comprehensive overview before starting a trial, whereas siblings retrieve specific files or samples.

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 'Use this to see everything Brainfile ships before starting a trial', providing a clear when-to-use context. It implies alternatives (sibling tools) for fetching specific files, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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