brain_watch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: installation of a hook, idempotence, use of curl, exit 0, asynchronous execution, and return values. However, it omits potential side effects like file modification (hook script), error handling, or internet connectivity requirements.

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 paragraph that effectively front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key traits).

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 no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (hook path and installation status). It covers the main workflow, safety, and environment requirements. Missing details include error scenarios, prerequisites (git installed), and behavior if the directory is not a git repo, but overall it is fairly complete for an installation tool.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating what the schema covers (e.g., api_key for authentication, instance_id for target brain). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the primary burden.

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 it installs a git post-commit hook to automatically learn from every commit, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'brain_from_git' by saying 'no manual brain_from_git needed'.

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 explains when to use this tool (as a replacement for manual brain_from_git) and provides context like idempotency, compatibility (curl, any environment), and non-blocking behavior. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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