Design Research Brief Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description repeats 'Read-only' and summarizes the return shape, which is also covered by the output schema, but it does add the useful behavioral detail that the template is pre-filled with reference ids. That added context is modest, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 three short, front-loaded statements: purpose, usage condition, and return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only template generator with a fully described schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the single app_dir parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: it returns the design/research/brief.json shape pre-filled with reference ids. It also positions itself relative to design_research_collect, which helps distinguish it from one sibling. However, it does not differentiate from other design_* siblings such as design_generate or design_research_check.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when: authoring the design brief after design_research_collect.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke it and names the preceding step. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, so it stops 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.