brief

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds substantive behavior: what each workflow produces, the ref-requiredness rule, and the critical 'Follow the brief it returns' directive telling the agent what to do with the output. It doesn't describe the return shape beyond 'text of the prompt', but that is largely self-evident for this tool.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is and who it's for, then enumerates the four workflows. One long sentence, but the workflow glosses are compact and each clarifies a selection choice; little is wasted.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, selection guidance across all four workflows, the ref/collection rules, and a directive to act on the returned brief. Sufficient to invoke correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Adds meaning the schema does not encode: the schema marks only 'workflow' as required, yet the description states 'ref is required except for triage, which takes an optional collection', clarifying the conditional requiredness. The ref format itself is left to the schema, which already documents it at 67% coverage.

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 that this returns the brief (prompt text) for one of four named workflows, and distinguishes it from MCP prompts by targeting 'agents and skills that cannot fetch MCP prompts'. The verb is implicit ('The brief for...') rather than a direct 'Get the brief', but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly scopes use to 'agents and skills that cannot fetch MCP prompts', which is a real when/when-not condition, and the four annotated workflows give clear selection guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead when MCP prompts are available.

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