brain_describe_anatomy

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides no additional transparency about side effects or safety considerations.

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 succinct and directly explains the action and its parameters without redundant details. It is well-structured and easy to parse, though slightly repetitive in phrasing.

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?

The description lacks information about expected output or return format, even though an output schema exists. It also does not mention potential errors or failure modes, making it incomplete for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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?

Both parameters are clearly explained: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, which has no descriptions.

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 it runs a specific brain domain agent action named 'describe_anatomy', which distinguishes it from other domain actions. However, the actual semantics of 'describe_anatomy' are not explained, leaving its real purpose ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any criteria for selection or contrast with sibling tools, such as 'brain_chat' or other brain-domain actions.

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