designer_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and locality profile is covered by structured data. The description's contribution beyond that is the mention of 'LOCAL citations' and the check dimensions (responsive/a11y/motion/performance), which hint at what the brief emphasizes, but it never says what the agent receives or whether a 'plan' is generative advice versus curated references.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the primary use case is front-loaded. But the compression comes at the cost of clarity: 'AI-slop looks' and 'LOCAL citations' are opaque, and stacking four slash-separated check categories makes the sentence dense without adding precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the read-only annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a five-parameter planning tool with zero schema descriptions, the description should at minimum explain the goal/style/category inputs and how they shape the brief; it leaves that entirely to guesswork.

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% across five parameters (goal, limit, style, category, platform), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — no explanation of how 'style' or 'category' interact, what units 'limit' caps, or how 'platform' affects the brief. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 names two modes of work (planning app/web design, fixing 'AI-slop' looks) and mentions check categories, so an agent can guess this produces a design brief. However, 'AI-slop' is unexplained jargon and the phrase 'LOCAL citations' is ambiguous, so the actual output — a brief with cited references — is only inferable. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like designer_search or designer_audit, which plausibly overlap.

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?

Usage is only implied by the opening verbs ('Plan... or fix...'); there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing to designer_search, designer_audit, or designer_get_bundle despite six siblings that likely compete for the same request. The agent is left to infer the boundary from tool names alone.

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