get_brain_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it reads (read-only), works locally without contacting YouTube, and handles one or all brains based on the parameter. This is valuable context, though it doesn't discuss potential errors, performance, or data formats; however, the output schema covers return structure, so this is sufficient.

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 sentences. The first front-loads the action and scope; the second adds a crucial constraint. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema information. It is concise and well structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: purpose, parameter semantics, and a key behavioral trait (no YouTube contact). The output schema handles return values, and sibling tools provide broader context, so the description is 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 schema has one optional parameter with zero description coverage, but the description explicitly explains the parameter's effect: providing a brain_id reads one brain, while omitting it reads all local brains. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and gives the agent clear guidance on how to use the parameter.

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 the tool reads progress (specific verb) for either a single brain or all local brains (resource and scope). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on progress/status rather than creation, listing, search, or deletion, and adds a unique behavioral note (never contacts YouTube).

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?

The description provides clear context: use this to read progress for one or all local brains, without contacting YouTube. It implies when to choose this over alternatives (when you need status) and gives a constraint (never contacts YouTube), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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