get_brand_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what is returned (read-style lookup content) but does not state read-only semantics, auth requirements, cost, or caching behavior. For a simple configuration lookup the enumeration of return content covers most of what an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The return-content list comes first and the usage directive is front-loaded second, so the agent gets both the what and the when in the most useful order.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return contents, which is appropriate for a lookup tool. Minor gap: no disclosure of whether configuration is static or version-dependent, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about the brand slug or its format beyond the schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('brand-specific configuration for a PLC') and enumerates the content categories (memory areas, data types, naming conventions, ST syntax, IEC 61131-3 languages, project structure). This is clearly distinct from sibling reference/template tools like get_iec61131_reference and get_code_template.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Always call this before generating code for a specific brand.' That is a strong, actionable directive. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it 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.