get_brand_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's non-destructive nature by stating it's auto-loaded at session start, and it specifies that corpus inventory contains counts, not contents, setting expectations. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a zero-parameter read operation, this is sufficient.

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, long sentence but packs in all essential facts without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose ('Orientation for THIS brand') and lists specific content elements. It's structured and readable despite its length, earning a high score.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details what the tool returns (identity, rails, verbatim quotes, competitive changes, corpus counts) and even clarifies the counts-vs-contents distinction. Combined with clear usage timing, this fully equips the agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to add redundant information. It focuses on the tool's purpose and output, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing brand orientation including identity, guidelines, verbatim marketer notes, competitive changes, and an inventory of available corpora. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('brand briefing') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_brand_context by focusing on session-start orientation and corpus availability.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: the editor auto-loads at session start, and the agent should call it to refresh mid-session, after switching brands, or when needing to know what is available before choosing a tool. This clearly indicates when to use it and implies it's a precursor to tool selection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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