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

The description describes a pure detection/read operation, but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, implying the tool is not read-only. That is a direct contradiction between the stated behavior and the structured safety annotation, and the description adds no other behavioral context to resolve it.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The format list is compact and useful, and the timing cue 'before building' is placed where an agent will see it early.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, it does not compensate for the missing 'content' parameter description or address the annotation inconsistency, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 only parameter is 'content,' but the schema gives it 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain what form the content should take. It only indirectly implies the content is the agent-file data to inspect, leaving format, size, and expected input representation unclear.

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 uses the specific verb 'Detect' and names the exact resource: the supported agent-file format of the given content. It enumerates the possible formats and adds the key sequencing context 'before building,' which clearly distinguishes it from build, describe, and verify operations.

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 phrase 'before building' gives clear usage timing relative to a build workflow, implying this should be called before build_brain. It does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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