brain_what_can_you_do

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds context about the JWT/tenant/company scope but does not elaborate on potential side effects or what the action actually changes. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, adds routing context in one sentence, and lists parameter explanations clearly. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately for a simple wrapper, and it notes the platform routing context. However, it does not describe the output or return value, nor does it explain how this action relates to the similar 'what_can_you_do' sibling, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between them.

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 provides only types and defaults, but the description gives meaningful semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This clarifies how each parameter should be used, though it could specify expected JSON structure or constraints further.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Run the brain domain agent action `what_can_you_do`.' It also adds useful scoping context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'what_can_you_do' tool, but the 'brain domain agent action' qualifier provides reasonable clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'brain_chat' or 'brain_ask.' It explains the routing mechanism and arguments but does not state when this action is appropriate or when another tool should be preferred.

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