brainstorm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that multiple experts will think divergently, but it doesn't explain how many experts participate, how the process works, whether the output is a list of ideas, or any caveats like dependency on the topic or constraints. The agent cannot anticipate the outcome beyond 'innovative ideas'.

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, succinct sentence that communicates the core purpose without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the key concept (brainstorming) and the mechanism (multiple experts). It could have added a bit more detail without becoming lengthy, but as a standalone it is efficient.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify what the agent should expect in the response (e.g., a structured list of ideas, a summary), and it doesn't explain the optional advisors/constraints behavior, such as how a default expert set is chosen. An agent would need to infer or experiment to understand the full workflow.

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% – all three parameters (topic, advisors, constraints) have descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify the default selection behavior for advisors, which the schema implies but doesn't specify.

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 'brainstorming' (头脑风暴) with multiple experts diverging from different angles to generate innovative ideas. It specifies the verb, resource (multiple experts), and the creative outcome. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like roundtable or consult, but the purpose is unmistakable and not a tautology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as roundtable, consult, or review. There is no mention of when brainstorming is appropriate, nor exclusions for cases where a different approach (e.g., structured critique) would be better. The description is purely a capability statement.

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