brand_check

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: speed (<50ms), input types (text, color, font, css), output format (pass/fail with specific fixes), and mentions it's not for deep audits. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: first sentence defines purpose and speed, second details inputs and outputs, third provides usage guidance and boundaries. No redundant information.

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's complexity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers what it does, when to use it, prerequisites, and what to expect as output. It compensates for lacking output schema by stating 'returns pass/fail with specific fixes'.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions per parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of each input (e.g., 'voice violations, never-say, AI-isms' for text) and the return type (pass/fail with 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 that the tool checks text, colors, fonts, or CSS against the compiled brand identity, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'brand identity'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like brand_audit_content by noting it's for fast inline checks, not deep audits.

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 ('call reflexively while generating content or code, the way you'd run a linter') and when not ('NOT for deep audits — use brand_audit_content for comprehensive scoring'). Also mentions prerequisite: 'Requires brand_compile to have run first'.

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