brand_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: speed (under 50ms), return type (specific actionable fixes), prerequisites (requires brand_compile), and what it checks (text, color, font, css). It also clarifies what it does NOT do, leaving no ambiguity.

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 yet comprehensive, front-loading the purpose and usage, then systematically covering each parameter and exclusion. Every sentence is essential, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains all four inputs, their checks, the tool's behavior (fast, specific fixes), prerequisites, and distinguishes from multiple siblings. A developer could use this tool immediately without confusion.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each input (e.g., 'voice violations' for text, 'nearest brand color with ΔE' for color), provides examples, and clarifies how results are returned (pass/fail, actionable fixes).

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 is an 'inline brand linter' with specific verb+resource ('call this WHILE writing content or code'), and explicitly distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like brand_check_compliance, brand_audit_content, and brand_preflight, making its unique role unmistakable.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (tight loops while writing, before publish) and when not to use (not a publish-time gate, not for scoring, not for HTML/CSS rule violations), and names specific alternative tools for those cases (brand_check_compliance, brand_audit_content, brand_preflight).

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