Get a brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Reads only' is consistent with that. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: reading an open brief adopts it for the session so a second agent can continue the work, and the fingerprint option compares the node against its last sign-off. That side-effect/concurrency disclosure is the kind of addition that earns credit over the annotation baseline.

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?

Purpose comes first, followed by the no-node fallback and then the `next` payload description. It is dense and jargon-heavy with long em-dash chains ('role, gear, lines, directions, system, status'), but each clause carries distinct information and nothing is filler.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the returned brief record, the `next` fields, and sign-off comparison. However, the nested `target` parameter (described only vaguely in the schema as 'the facts the process gate reads') and the `session` file-selection parameter are left unexplained, which is a real gap for an otherwise complex tool.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the nodeId resolution chain. The description reinforces fingerprint's comparison semantics but says nothing about `target` (the process gate) or `session`, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema for those. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the brief a frame was made from') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (role, gear, lines, directions, system, status, sign-off, motion plan), plus the no-node fallback ('every open brief in the file'). It never names a sibling tool (e.g. figma_set_brief or figma_get_guide) to draw the read-vs-write line, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'For an open brief, `next`: the stage the record shows ... what it lacks to move on, the call that supplies it' implies the use case of finding the next step, and the no-node form implies a listing use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer which tool to prefer.

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