brain_append

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the creation-on-missing behavior, which is key. However, it does not mention safety (e.g., non-destructive nature), return values, or any side effects. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 that immediately states the verb and resource, with parenthetical clarification. No wasted words; highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior. However, it omits return value, formatting expectations, and any constraints (e.g., file size). Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., path format or text handling). 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 clearly states the action 'append' and the resource 'note', and adds the important qualifier that it creates the note if missing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'brain_write' (which likely overwrites) and 'brain_edit' (which may modify existing content).

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 implies the tool should be used for appending text, but provides no guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., brain_write, brain_edit) or when not to use this tool. No explicit context for choosing this over siblings.

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