brain_collab_pairs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the core behavior (listing pairs based on file events or recalls, flagging solo contributors) and mentions output details (routing suggestion, example). However, it lacks disclosure about error handling, performance, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 reasonably concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a helpful example. A few sentences could be tightened (e.g., the example could be more compact), but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what data is shown, how collaboration is detected, use cases, and an example. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., list of objects), but the example provides sufficient guidance. Minor gaps in completeness.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default of min_weight is stated but already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra semantic value.

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 shows a 'Person↔Person Collaboration Graph' listing pairs of contributors who collaborated via file touches or smart_recall, with routing suggestions and bus-factor analysis. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like brain_who_knows or brain_file_map.

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 specifies ideal use cases (onboarding, bus-factor analysis) and provides an example call, but does not explicitly exclude misuse or compare with alternative tools. The context is clear enough that an agent would use this for collaboration networks rather than other brain_* tools.

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