brain_briefing

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the push-based nature, the trigger events, and the return structure (risk_level plus up to 5 ranked warnings with confidence and known fix). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., does calling this trigger any background processing or state changes?), nor does it mention rate limits or authentication requirements. Still, for a proactive warning tool, the core behaviors are well-explained.

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 tightly packed with useful information in two sentences. The first sentence establishes the tool's unique value proposition (push-based, proactive warning), and the second provides specific usage guidance and return format. No wasted words—every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description clearly explains trigger events, context mapping, threshold control, and the return structure. It covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Losing a point due to lack of explicit side-effect disclosure and the absence of any output schema to supplement return value documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining how each event_type maps to context content (file path vs. title+body vs. description) and how threshold controls noise. This adds meaningful usage context that helps the agent set parameters correctly. One point off because the instance_id parameter is not further elaborated beyond its schema description.

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: 'proactively checks whether the file you just opened, the PR you are about to raise, or the deploy you are about to run matches any known failure pattern — and surfaces warnings BEFORE something breaks.' It uses a specific verb ('surfaces warnings'), specifies the resource ('known failure patterns'), and clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing its push-based, proactive nature, distinguishing it from other brain_* tools that are likely pull-based.

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 states when to call this tool: 'Call this on file_open (with the file path as context), pr_open (with the PR title/body), or deploy (with a short description of what is being deployed).' It also provides clear context for interpretation based on event_type. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the given triggers are specific enough that alternative tools (e.g., brain_predict_failures) are implied for other scenarios. This is excellent guidance for an agent.

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