brainstorm

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds only the vague 'start or continue' without explaining whether existing content is overwritten or appended. It does not disclose side effects, file naming behavior, or project context requirements, so the description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse. It is concise but perhaps too sparse to fully illuminate behavior, which is why it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

The tool is simple with few parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about when to use vs. siblings, what 'continue' implies, and whether a project context is required, leaving gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (topic, content, project) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify relationships between parameters, so baseline 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 uses the specific verbs 'start or continue' with the resource 'brainstorm document,' clearly indicating the tool manages brainstorm documents. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like write or capture, which may also handle document creation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like write or capture, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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