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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not explain idempotency implications, safety, or any side effects. It also does not clarify that different operations within the oneOf schema might have different behavioral characteristics. With zero added context, it fails to help the agent understand what happens when calling this tool.

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?

While the description is short (one sentence), it is severely under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load any useful information and provides no structure to guide the agent. The sentence is essentially a vague directive that adds no value.

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 the tool's complexity (five operations, nested payloads, required fields like idempotencyKey and expectedVersion), the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any explanation of the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, behavior, or usage context. There is no output schema to compensate, so the description is the sole source of guidance, and it provides none.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about the parameters. The schema has a complex oneOf structure with operation and payload fields, but the description does not explain the purpose of any parameter, such as projectId, nodeId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or details. The agent is left to infer meaning purely from the schema, which is insufficient given the complexity.

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 does not state what the tool does. It only says 'Use the closed agent action capability family from the frozen Brain Scanner policy,' which is vague and does not mention any of the actual operations (finish_node_work, open_node_in_editor, relay_execute_local_action, run_selected_tests, start_node_work) that the schema defines. There is no specific verb+resource, and it fails to distinguish this from its many siblings, many of which share the same operation names.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is a wrapper for multiple agent actions or when to choose this over the individual sibling tools like finish_node_work or start_node_work. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative references are provided.

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