Brute Genius Results

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses descending order and top_k truncation, but says nothing about whether the call blocks, what happens if the plan is incomplete, error conditions, or read-only safety.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the return set and ordering rule without filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 explained. Still, for a required plan_id tool with no annotations, the description omits the plan lifecycle context and preconditions needed to call it correctly.

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 the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies that top_k controls how many highest-scoring combinations are returned, but never explains plan_id, which is required and is the key input for selecting a plan.

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?

It states a concrete retrieval action (return top_k highest-scoring combinations) with an ordering rule. However, 'combinations' and 'results' are not tied to the brute_genius_plan/launch lifecycle, so it is not clearly distinguished from brute_genius_status.

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 guidance on when to call this rather than brute_genius_status, nor whether the plan must be launched or completed first. The plan_id prerequisite is implied only by the parameter name.

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