brainstorm_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the steering modes and that the tool fetches context (ideas, notes, etc.), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only (non-destructive) or if it modifies state. The description mentions returning a JSON with session_uuid and turn_number, implying session state management but lacks clarity on side effects.

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 well-structured and concise. It uses bullet points for steering modes and parameter explanations, making it easy to parse. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The return value is also briefly described, fitting within a single paragraph.

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, usage timing, steering modes, and return structure. Given the presence of an output schema, the return value explanation is adequate. However, it lacks information on error handling or limits, but for a brainstorming turn tool, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes each parameter: topic (brainstorm topic), steering (with mode options), session_uuid (for continuing sessions), and turn_notes (optional free-text). It adds context beyond the schema, such as default steering and session continuation, but could further clarify the constraints on steering values.

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's purpose: 'Run one turn of a brainstorm session, returning relevant context.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('brainstorm session turn'), and distinguishes itself by detailing steering modes and session continuation. Siblings like 'get_brainstorm_session' and 'save_brainstorm_output' have different purposes, so this description effectively differentiates.

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 explicitly says 'Call this at the start of a brainstorm and after each steering action,' which provides clear usage context. It doesn't list when not to use it or alternatives, but given the sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke this tool vs others like 'assemble_brainstorm_context'.

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