brain_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content, which is helpful, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any authorization requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary usage directive and then listing the returned information. Colons and dashes provide clear structure without verbosity.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is nearly complete, but it could add a note that the operation is safe or read-only to fully reassure an agent given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'given an absolute or relative file path', which clarifies the parameter's expected value beyond the schema's bare 'File Path' title. However, it adds little else (e.g., no constraints on existence or format), so it only partially compensates.

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 ('returns what the brain knows') and resource ('given a ... file path'), and enumerates the returned content (matching node, code neighbors, linked vault pages, access events). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like brain_search or brain_node, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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?

It explicitly says 'THE tool to call before touching a file', giving a clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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