brain_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the outputs for each view (e.g., 'domain breakdown with counts, %, breakthroughs, top concepts') but does not explicitly state side effects or safety guarantees (likely read-only). The behavioral traits are well described but lack explicit non-destructive confirmation.

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 well-structured with a summary line followed by a detailed Args block. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value. It could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main views adequately. However, it lacks details on return value structure or interpretation of the 'pulse' matrix, which might be needed for full completeness.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed explanations for each 'view' value, including defaults and what each displays, adding significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides 'Brain overview, domain distribution, and thinking pulse' and enumerates specific views (overview, domains, pulse, etc.) with distinct purposes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'cognitive_patterns' or 'query_analytics'.

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 lists available views but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is implied by the view descriptions.

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