research_brain__idea_scout

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the execution environment (no network, no filesystem, no shell, no secrets, isolated-no-net) and that the process is gated with a pre-mortem, but it never says what the tool returns, how the score is structured, or whether it is deterministic.

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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded enough, but the bracketed '[Warden A/100 ✓]' prefix and the capability/sandbox/sha256 block consume roughly half the text with operational metadata rather than guidance on using the tool.

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?

With two simple parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what a scored idea looks like and what the evidence gates produce, since that is the tool's whole value. It gestures at the process but leaves the agent unable to predict the result shape.

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 both 'task' and 'constraints' are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific compound verb ('Find and rigorously score') plus the resource ('a net-new idea') and its timing ('before building'). This distinguishes it from build_brain__build_product by signalling a pre-build phase, though it never names or contrasts siblings explicitly.

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?

'before building' and 'net-new idea' give a clear situational trigger, and 'evidence gates and a mandatory pre-mortem' hints at the process it runs. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. fact_gate for verifying existing claims), so routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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