list_brands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the context of 'configured for a site' gives some insight. However, it does not mention authentication needs, pagination, or what exactly constitutes a 'brand' in this context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise and to the point, though the parenthetical could be seen as slightly extraneous. It earns its place by adding context.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should offer more context. It doesn't explain the parameter, the return value, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like list_sites or get_mentions. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.

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 schema has one required parameter 'global_key' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'global_key' refers to (presumably the site identifier) or how to obtain it. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide any parameter meaning.

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 lists brands, with the specific context of 'configured for a site' and 'GenAI mention/citation tracking.' This distinguishes it from other brand-related tools like create_brand or delete_brands, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from citation-specific tools like get_mentions.

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 phrase 'used for GenAI mention/citation tracking' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_mentions or get_site_citations). No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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