agent-brain

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It mentions 'learns from every thought' suggesting writes to memory, but does not disclose if it mutates state, its destructive potential, or any side effects like cost (8 MESH mentioned but no 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?

Description is somewhat verbose with marketing language ('living mind', 'fused in one call'), but still concise enough. Could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

No output schema so description should explain return values; it does not. Parameters are simple (one nested object), so basic completeness is adequate but missing output info reduces score.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value: 'the question or thought to reason over' is similar to schema's 'description'. Redundant 'Payload for agent-brain' line.

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 is specific: 'recalls its own memories, reasons over them with Claude, and learns from every thought' clearly states the tool's function, distinguishing it from siblings like 'agent-memory' or 'safety-scrub'.

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 implies use for memory-based reasoning but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context provided.

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