List brands

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that brands are style-only token sets scoped to the current config and that slug values are consumed by create_asset. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: one defines the resource scope, the other explains the practical use. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation 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 zero parameters, readOnly/idempotent annotations, and a simple list operation, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what brands are, confirms they are scoped under the config, and explains how slugs are used downstream. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return shape, but that is not necessary for a straightforward list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining how the output (brand slugs) relates to a parameter on another tool (`brand` on create_asset), which is helpful context beyond the empty 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 title supplies the action ('List') and the description defines the resource as 'style-only token sets applied under your config,' making it clear this tool returns the available brands. It does not explicitly state 'returns all brands,' but the combination of title and description is sufficient to distinguish it from create_brand/update_brand.

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 directly tells the agent when to use this tool: to obtain a slug to pass as `brand` on create_asset. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like create_brand or list_assets, but the contextual instruction is concrete and actionable.

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