get_brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details' but does not mention read-only nature, error scenarios (e.g., invalid brainId), permissions needed, or the response format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more useful detail without becoming verbose, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'details' are returned, whether the output is a brain object with all fields, or if pagination applies. For a get operation, this lacks critical context for the agent to interpret the result.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for brainId ('The ID of the brain'), the description adds no additional meaning such as where to obtain the ID, its format, or constraints. Baseline for full coverage is 3, but lack of added value reduces score.

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 'Get details about a specific brain' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (brain), distinguishing it from siblings like list_brains (which lists all brains) and set_active_brain (which sets active brain).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_brains or get_thought. The description does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring a valid brainId obtained from list_brains.

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