brand_feedback_review

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes read-only behavior, local file reading without network access, and mentions quarantined items are flagged for prompt injection. Minor omission: no mention of behavior on empty results or invalid filters, but overall sufficient.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately addresses common agent questions (read-only, no network, what it shows, filters). No redundant or filler content.

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 has 2 optional enum parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the tool's role, data source, behavior, filtering options, and provides explicit guidance on what not to do. An agent can correctly select and invoke this 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'quarantined' items are related to prompt injection, which is not in the schema. Also mentions default status is 'new' and default category is 'all', while schema only lists enum values.

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 reviews agent feedback from a specific location (~/.brandsystem/feedback/), is read-only, and lists what it shows (summary stats, individual items). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying NOT to use for submitting feedback (use brand_feedback) or changing status (use brand_feedback_triage).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to triage feedback, spot recurring issues, and prioritize fixes.' Also provides exclusions: NOT for submitting feedback or changing item status, with specific alternative tool names.

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