verdigraph__build_brain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses determinism ('Identical bytes always produce the identical brain_id'), output structure (brain_id, content_hash, node/edge counts, firing report, provenance), and effect of 'include_document'. No side effects or failure cases, but sufficient for a compile action.

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?

Description is efficient with 6 sentences, front-loaded with a bracketed summary. Each sentence adds value (purpose, input, output, determinism, option). Slightly verbose with 'the 9-invariant firing report' but still within reason. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, description lists return fields (brain_id, content_hash, etc.). Parameters are well explained, including format options and include_document flag. Lacks error handling or size limits, but for a compile tool this is adequate. No gaps for expected usage.

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%, so description adds substantial meaning. It explains 'content' as file string, 'format' with possible values (verdigraph_genome, claude_project_export, etc.), and 'include_document' behavior. Adds value beyond schema, though format list is partial (missing enum annotation).

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 specifies a clear verb ('Compile') and resource ('agent file into a deterministic, content-addressed brain'), distinguishes from siblings like 'verdigraph__verify_brain' by focusing on building, and includes deterministic property, making purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for building brains from agent file content, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'verdigraph__detect_format' (likely for pre-processing) or 'verdigraph__verify_brain' (post-processing). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, only implied context.

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