brand_audit

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it returns pass/warn/fail with actionable details, implying a non-destructive read operation. It could be more specific about the response structure, but it adequately conveys the behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, lists checks, provides usage guidance, and then exclusions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It outlines the tool's inputs (none), its procedure (checks listed), its output format (pass/warn/fail), and when to use it, along with references to alternatives.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline score of 4 applies as no additional parameter information is needed.

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 tool validates the .brand/ directory for completeness and correctness, listing specific checks. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating what it is NOT for (brand_audit_content, brand_preflight).

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?

Guidance is explicit: 'Use after brand_compile to verify readiness, or anytime to diagnose issues.' It also provides exclusions for content copy and HTML/CSS, directing to the appropriate tools.

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