designer_generate_design_brief

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists what is assembled (visual theme, industry rules, etc.) but omits details like determinism, side effects, required prior steps, or performance implications. 'Resolves intent' is ambiguous.

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 a single sentence with a colon and list, efficiently conveying the tool's output components. It is concise, though the list could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), but no fluff is present.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return format. It lists assembled components but doesn't clarify structure, ordering, or whether it returns a JSON or markdown brief. Adequate but not thorough for a composite tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond listing assembled components. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already handles semantics.

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 'Generate a complete design brief for a product' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like designer_get_cognitive_law or designer_resolve_intent by being a composite assembly tool, not a single lookup.

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 implies usage for obtaining a design brief, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., using individual designer_get_* tools for granular info). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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