brain_where_deploys

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool both resolves and cross-checks against repo config, and implies a read-only operation, but it omits what the response looks like and how errors (e.g., missing path or config) are handled.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and object. It contains no filler and communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a clear high-level purpose and enough context to understand the tool's role. However, it does not specify the exact return format or error behavior, making it only minimally complete.

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 single 'path' parameter has zero schema-level description. The description adds that the path is a 'file/path' and connects it to deploy target resolution, but it does not clarify path format, existence requirements, or whether the path is repo-relative or absolute.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource as the 'canonical deploy target' for a file/path, plus a secondary action 'cross-check it against repo config.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling brain_* tools, none of which mention deployment.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions. The phrasing implies use when a deploy target for a file/path is needed, but it does not offer decision guidance relative to sibling tools.

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