Preview the Creative Brief (no generation)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (positive/negative prompt, technical params, debate transcript) and key behavioral traits — 'instant, offline, writes nothing' — which tells the agent this is a safe, side-effect-free read. It stops short of noting any limits or auth considerations, but the core behavior profile is covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the use case ('Use before generating'), followed by tightly packed specifics about what it runs and returns, then a closing behavioral clause. Every sentence carries information with no filler.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates the brief's components (prompt, technical params, transcript), so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the side-effect disclosure, nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the assetKind enum, and the description only loosely references 'an asset kind'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — runs a persona consultation and returns a compiled creative brief — and the title reinforces the 'preview, no generation' framing. It is clearly distinguishable from the generator siblings (generate_image, generate_voiceover, etc.) because it explicitly produces a brief rather than an asset.

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?

'Use before generating to show/tune the strategy' gives explicit timing and intent, which implicitly contrasts with the generate_* siblings that actually produce assets. It lacks an explicit exclusion or a named alternative, but the context for when to reach for it is clear.

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