get_brand_principles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile of the operation. The description adds no significant behavioral details beyond that (no return format, no requirement stipulations). No contradiction is present, so a neutral 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and purpose, followed by a concise usage trigger sentence. The enumerated lists are dense but each item adds semantic nuance that the schema does not fully convey, so no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only, zero-required-params tool with no output schema, the description's identification of topics plus usage triggers is nearly complete. The gap would be an explicit differentiation from the closely related siblings get_principles and get_brand_system, which the description leaves implied rather than stated.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description makes the topic parameter more meaningful by breaking it into concrete subtopics (clear space, min sizes, variants, palette, contrast, trend vs signature, etc.). This gives an agent higher confidence when choosing a filter value, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'filter by topic' statement.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Get brand and visual-design principles' and then enumerates specific domains (logo usage, gradient usage, imagery, visual hierarchy, brand-as-system thinking). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_principles or get_brand_system without requiring the schema.

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 includes an explicit 'Use when the user asks about...' sentence that lists concrete triggers (branding, logos, gradients, imagery, visual consistency). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use this tool, e.g., how it differs from get_principles or get_brand_system.

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