brief.validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns a completeness score and improvement suggestions, but this is consistent and adds moderate transparency. No contradictions.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and result. It is concise but could be slightly expanded to mention the strictMode parameter. Still, it earns its place without unnecessary words.

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 provides a basic understanding of the output (completeness score and suggestions), but lacks details on validation criteria or return format. Given the complexity of the input schema and no output schema, more context would be helpful. Score 3 is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable per guidelines.

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 uses the specific verb 'validate' with the resource 'design brief' and mentions the return of a completeness score and improvement suggestions. This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'accessibility.audit' or 'quality.evaluate'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings implies its usage. A score of 3 reflects that usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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