List brains

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context annotations can't express: results are limited to brains visible to the current connection, and memories are not returned. It doesn't say anything about ordering or result size, but the tool is trivial enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the required call ordering, then the disambiguation. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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, read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, sequencing, and scope exclusions. Since there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about what a brain entry contains (e.g., id and name), but the mention of retrieving a brain id largely fills that role.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related the description could clarify, and it doesn't waste words pretending otherwise.

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 and resource ("List Make0 brains") and scopes it to "this connection can use". The final sentence explicitly excludes memories, which is exactly the confusion risk given the sibling memory tools.

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?

"Call this first to get a brain id for search_brain" gives an explicit ordering and names the dependent sibling. The agent knows both when to use it and what to use the result for, with no inference required.

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