brainstorm_quick

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

Annotation `readOnlyHint: true` tells the agent this is a read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: parallel model firing, compact comparison output, no debate rounds, no synthesis delay, and the under-10-second expectation. It does not mention potential rate limiting or model failure behavior, but this is beyond the essential disclosure for this tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, the key guarantees, and when to use it vs. the alternative.

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 4-parameter schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's behavior, timing, return format (compact comparison), and the sibling-tool boundary. No critical context for selection or invocation is missing.

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%, so all four parameters are already well-documented. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, though it indirectly emphasizes the default behavior of firing all models in parallel.

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 tool's purpose: getting instant multi-model perspectives via parallel calls. It explicitly distinguishes this from the `brainstorm` sibling tool by contrasting quick versus deep analysis with rounds and synthesis.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use for quick second opinions, snap decisions, or diverse perspectives fast. It also names the alternative `brainstorm` for deeper analysis, making the decision between siblings clear.

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