Export Layout Brief for AI Analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the payload contains and its role in a larger pipeline, but never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether anything is written to disk, or how large the brief may get for a big project (no truncation or size caveat). Those are meaningful gaps for a tool whose output is meant to be read wholesale into an agent's 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces before the pipeline steps. Every sentence contributes, though the inline enumeration of the three downstream/upstream steps is slightly dense and could be tightened.

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, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the brief's contents (file tree, content excerpts, heuristic profile) and its position in the workflow. It stops short of clarifying output format (single text blob vs. file reference) and any size limits, which matters for an evidence-export tool.

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?

Only one parameter (projectPath), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it as the project path. The description adds no further semantics such as whether a relative or absolute path is expected, or what happens with an invalid path. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it packages a project's raw evidence (file tree + content excerpts + heuristic profile) into a layout brief for AI inference. It clearly differentiates from regex-based analysis and names the downstream tools it feeds (story_apply_layout_verdict, story_auto_refactor_structure). It does not disambiguate against the sibling story_export, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this.

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 an explicit three-step workflow: call this tool, read the brief and infer, then submit the verdict via story_apply_layout_verdict, after which story_auto_refactor_structure with strategy auto_profile consumes the result. The condition selecting this tool over rule-based analysis is stated directly ('thay vì quy tắc regex cứng').

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