creative_studio_brand_kit_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a simple return statement by revealing the source path (./BRAND_KIT/kit.yml) and the fallback behavior (tasteful neutral defaults with 'defaults_used' set to true). This is important context that wouldn't be obvious from the schema or tool name alone.

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 only two sentences, but every part earns its place: the first sentence states the primary purpose and contents, the second addresses the default behavior and usage context. It is front-loaded and free of any filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, this description is fully sufficient. It explains what is returned (the kit contents), the source, the edge case of no kit, and when to use it. There are no unresolved gaps that would leave an agent confused about how to invoke or interpret the result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the return value. No additional parameter-related meaning is needed.

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 returns the brand kit (colours, fonts, logo path, clear-space) from a specific file, which immediately distinguishes it from sibling creative tools like compose, generate_visual, and edit_visual. The verb 'return' and resource 'brand kit' are precise, and there's no ambiguity about what is retrieved.

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 includes an explicit usage directive: 'Use this to judge brand fit before composing banners.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest any alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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