brigade_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at behavior by mentioning polling ('怎么轮询'), which is useful context for an agent coordinating the workflow, but it never states that this is a read-only informational resource or what happens on invocation. Modest but incomplete disclosure.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the two key topics (when to use, how to poll) bracketed at the end. No waste, nothing padded.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description should at least characterize the shape of what comes back (template fields, polling cadence). It gestures at the content but leaves the return format entirely undefined, which is a real gap for a tool whose whole value is its payload.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The 'parameter template' phrasing refers to the tool's content, not to inputs, so no parameter semantics are actually required.

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 names a specific resource — usage instructions and a parameter template for the brigade workflow — which is distinct from the run/status/list/stop siblings. However it states the resource as a noun phrase with no verb and never explicitly says 'call this to get X', so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It claims to contain 'when to use' guidance (什么时候该用), which implies the tool is a routing aid, but the description itself does not tell the agent when to invoke this tool versus brigade_run or brigade_status. Usage is left to be discovered from the tool's payload rather than stated in the definition.

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