build_research_brief

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful boundary (no web fetching), but says nothing about whether the brief is persisted, whether it overwrites an existing brief for that seed, whether the call is idempotent, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and artifact, with the exclusion appended compactly. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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?

This is a generative/write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented input parameter. The description would need to state the seed's role, whether results persist or overwrite, and roughly what comes back to be sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single required parameter seed_id, and the description never mentions it or explains how the seed drives the brief's content. The parenthetical describes the output artifact rather than the input, so the one parameter remains undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Write a structured research brief") and clarifies the artifact's contents (questions, angles, what to source). That is enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_research_brief, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required seed_id suggests a brief is generated from a captured seed, and "Does not fetch the web" rules out one expectation. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as get_research_brief or capture_seed.

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