Read a brand's composition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only side effects ('it mints no version and never moves a pin'), field semantics (revision vs chosenRevision, drift, resolved:false, locked:true), the meaning of meta.drifted, and the required kits:read scope. This is exceptionally transparent for a read operation.

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?

Although longer than average, every sentence contributes distinct, high-value information: purpose, usage timing, field behavior, edge cases, preview link, safety guarantees, and authentication requirements. It is front-loaded with a clear definition and wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description thoroughly explains the return values (revision, chosenRevision, drift, meta.drifted, resolved, locked, links.preview), edge cases, side effects, and auth. It also references the sibling add_brand_layer for mutation, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, projectId, is fully described in the schema as 'Owned brand project id from list_brand_projects.' The description adds no further parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage this is acceptable. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific definition: 'What a brand project is composed of on top of its design kit: its image direction, its interface style, and its page recipes.' The verb 'Read' is clear and the resource is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from mutating siblings like add_brand_layer and remove_brand_layer by framing itself as the read-before-change tool.

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 instructs 'Read this BEFORE changing any of them' and explains it is the only place to see what the user chose and whether drift exists. It also tells the agent when to stop ('a brand with nothing to report answers 0 and you can stop') and points to add_brand_layer as the decision point for accepting a drifted revision. This is strong when-to-use guidance with alternatives.

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