copy_research_brief

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds workflow context (phase, sequence, downstream tools) and prerequisite information, which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not contradict the annotations and provides enough behavioral context for an agent.

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 concise, using a colon to list deliverables efficiently, and then two short sentences for timing and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it generates, when to call it, what it depends on, and what it feeds. It does not detail output format or return values, but that is not critical given the lack of an output schema and the richness of the description. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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 description for project_path is clear ('Absolute path to the project directory') and coverage is 100%. The description merely reiterates that project_path is required and mentions PRD context, which is not a parameter. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool 'Generates a Copy Research Brief' and enumerates its specific outputs (VOC phrase bank, awareness mapping, JTBD extraction, etc.), providing a precise verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like design_research_brief by specifying it is for copy and feeds into copy_generate/ux_design.

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 gives explicit timing ('Call during Phase 2 (Define) AFTER the Design Research Brief') and workflow context ('The brief feeds into copy_generate and ux_design'). It also states prerequisites ('Requires project_path and PRD context'), making it clear when to use this tool instead of alternatives.

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