project_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the ordering of stages and the cutoff at 'In process', but it does not disclose the tool's read-only nature, return format, handling of completed tasks, or stage-matching behavior. The schema covers some parameters (e.g., exclude_completed, in_progress_match), but the description itself remains limited.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose and scope: 'Бриф проекта: стадии канбана по порядку до "В процессе" включительно, с задачами каждой стадии'. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear overall concept: a brief of ordered kanban stages up to 'In process' with their tasks. This is sufficient for understanding the primary use case, though it does not mention parameter interactions, edge cases, or default exclusions. The schema fills in some gaps, but the description could be slightly more complete in explaining the tool's position relative to other project-related tools.

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%, with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description itself does not explain parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. The description adds overall context about the output structure but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 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 function: it produces a project brief containing kanban stages in order up to 'In process' inclusive, along with tasks for each stage. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_by_stage or project_stages by emphasizing the ordered stages and the inclusion of tasks within a brief.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a concise project brief covering kanban stages up to 'In process' is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as tools for other stage ranges or different summary formats. The scope is implied by the wording, but no direct guidance is given.

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