interpret_brief

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns analysis but does not disclose idempotency, authorization, or side effects. Since it likely only processes the input, a 3 is adequate but could say 'no data stored'.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb 'Paste', lists outputs clearly. No wasted words, efficient and structured.

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 simple input and no output schema, description details outputs (deliverables, red flags, questions). Could mention return format (e.g., text list vs JSON) for completeness, but sufficient overall.

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?

Only one parameter 'brief' with 100% schema coverage. Description adds context that it's a brand's UGC brief, clarifying the type of text beyond the schema's 'full brand brief text'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool interprets a brand's UGC brief and returns specific outputs (deliverables, red flags, questions). Distinguishes from siblings like check_brief_red_flags by covering full analysis beyond just red flags.

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?

Clearly implies use when you have a UGC brief to analyze. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention sibling alternatives like check_brief_red_flags for simpler needs.

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