Metis — Save Brainstorm Output

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states side effects: writes a file to 'outputs/brainstorms/' and updates the 'brainstorm_sessions' table status to 'saved'. This is good, though it could mention if the operation is idempotent or destructive.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main action, then lists side effects, and finally documents parameters in a clear list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, side effects, and parameter semantics. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The side effects (file write, table update) are explicitly stated.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that adds brief descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., 'The session identifier', 'Short descriptive title'). These add meaning beyond the raw schema, though they are minimal. The baseline for low coverage is higher, so a 4 is appropriate.

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: to save/freeze a brainstorm session as Markdown output. It specifies the action ('Freeze') and the resource ('brainstorm session'). While it distinguishes from siblings like 'brainstorm_turn' by focusing on final saving, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other related tools.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., 'brainstorm_turn' for ongoing sessions, 'get_brainstorm_session' for retrieval). It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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