pbi_get_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it describes two specific return states (defined:false with clarifying questions, or the full brief plus recommended design system). This is useful context for an agent to know what to expect and how to handle the undefined case.

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 two short, focused paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return behavior and usage timing. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy or 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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema and annotations, this description is largely complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, and what it returns in both possible situations. The only gap is the unexplained request_id parameter, but given its optionality and the tool's simplicity, the overall context remains sufficient.

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 only parameter, request_id, is optional with a default empty string, but the description never mentions it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. An agent is left wondering what request_id refers to and whether it is needed to select the 'active project' or if it is merely a correlation ID.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Lee el brief de intencion del proyecto activo' (Reads the intent brief of the active project). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like pbi_define_brief (which would define rather than read) and pbi_apply_design_system (which applies rather than reads), while also mentioning it returns the recommended design system.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Consultalo ANTES de proponer paginas o elegir sistema' (Consult it BEFORE proposing pages or choosing a system), and explains the consequence of not doing so. This effectively communicates when it should be used versus relying on model inference, covering both the 'when' and an implied alternative.

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