design_research_brief_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the brief comes 'pre-filled with the reference ids', which is a small behavioral hint, but says nothing about whether a file is written, where it lands, whether it overwrites, permissions, or side effects. For a writing/templating 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?

It is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the file target, but the long nested parenthetical of sections makes it a run-on. It is compact but not cleanly structured, and the section list partly overlaps with what the output schema already conveys.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the section enumeration covers content adequately. What remains missing is the operational context: what the tool does to disk, where the template is written, and its relationship to the surrounding design_research/design_generate workflow.

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 single required parameter app_dir has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. The agent gets no clarification of what app_dir points to or how it affects output, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 explains the contents of the brief.json shape and lists the sections it covers, which gives real substance. However, it never states the action the tool performs (create a template? write a file? return a scaffold?), so an agent cannot tell what it actually does versus siblings like design_research_collect or design_research_check. The purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the many design_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is a templating/scaffolding step from the name alone.

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