get_brand_principles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds no further behavioral traits but does not contradict. It provides useful context about the breadth of content covered.

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?

Single focused paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence carries necessary information. No redundant phrasing.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage context thoroughly. Sibling list confirms uniqueness.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (topic, format). Description adds value by noting 'Omit to return all brand principles' and 'Default: full'. This enriches understanding beyond the 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?

Description specifies the tool retrieves brand and visual-design principles, listing concrete subtopics (logo usage, gradients, imagery, hierarchy, system thinking). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_brand_system or audit tools.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use the tool: when user asks about branding, logos, gradients, imagery, etc. It lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use or alternatives, but context hints at proper scope.

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