skflow_brief_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is deterministic, schema-mirroring, and non-LLM, implying a safe, repeatable validation. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, what happens on invalid input (e.g., errors vs. boolean result), or whether special permissions are needed. These gaps leave the agent without full transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and essential qualifiers ('Presentador→Orquestador', 'deterministic', 'no LLM'). Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers its main purpose and input types. However, without an output schema, the description does not clarify the return format or how success/failure is signaled. This is a minor gap for an otherwise straightforward validation tool, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The input schema already covers the sole parameter 'brief' with 100% coverage, describing allowed types (object or string) and the structure (goal/constraints/forbidden_capabilities). The tool description adds the terms 'YAML/JSON string' and 'Presentador→Orquestador' but does not meaningfully extend beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb ('Validate') and resource ('Presentador→Orquestador brief'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like skflow_brief_schema by emphasizing the tool performs a deterministic check against a schema rather than returning the schema itself. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: validate a brief against the schema, with the note 'no LLM' clarifying it is a deterministic, non-AI check. It indirectly contrasts with skflow_brief_schema, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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