audit_brand_assets

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add check-specific context. It does clarify that it checks file availability for SAMPLE logo and font assets, but it does not disclose the result shape or behavior when assets are missing, especially since there is no output schema.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource without filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any statement about return values or missing-asset behavior, but this is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 single parameter, basePath, is fully documented in the schema, including its optionality and default value. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Check whether') and a concrete resource ('required SAMPLE logo and font assets'), tied to a clear purpose ('final branded output'). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly name or contrast siblings such as validate_design_spec or get_brand_guidelines.

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 phrase 'for final branded output' gives clear context on when this check is appropriate, implying it should be used before producing final branded assets. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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