company_brain_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Validate' suggests a read-only check, but the description does not state whether it mutates anything, what it checks exactly, what it returns, or what happens if inconsistencies are found.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It places the core action ('Validate') and the subject ('canonical company-brain storage and projection consistency') upfront.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool, a one-line description is a minimum viable identification of purpose. However, key context is missing: what 'storage and projection consistency' means, what the tool outputs, and how it should be interpreted. No output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 input schema is complete by itself. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and it does not obscure anything. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('validate') and names a concrete resource and concern: canonical company-brain storage and projection consistency. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like company_brain_evaluate or company_memory_get.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when it is appropriate to run a health validation, or what conditions would prompt invocation. The description implies a diagnostic purpose but does not state it.

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