brand_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's output (colors, fonts, logo, confidence levels, session completion status, next steps) and fallback behavior if no .brand/ exists. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or constraints.

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, with only a few sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then provides details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear understanding of what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions the type of data returned and fallback behavior. However, it does not specify the exact structure or format of the output, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides all needed info. The description does not add parameter details but is not required to. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the output.

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's purpose: 'Check brand system progress and get next steps.' It specifies what is shown (colors, fonts, logo, confidence levels, session completion status, next steps) and distinguishes from sibling tools by providing a specific use case: resuming a session, checking readiness, or asking about brand state.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when resuming a previous session, checking readiness, or when the user asks "what's the state of my brand?"' It also mentions fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives to sibling tools.

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