Score ad briefs against brand and ICP context using rubric criteria to identify weak briefs before launch.
Rubric scores are judgments, not predictions of ad survival, performance, or conversion lift. Default demo mode uses synthetic heuristic decisions, never Jev.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | demo | |
| input | Yes | Workflow data: as_of, records and applicable brand/icp context; see examples. | |
| provider | No | typesafe | |
| confidence_threshold | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: rubric scores are judgments, not predictions of ad survival/performance/conversion lift, and demo mode uses synthetic heuristic decisions rather than Jev. However, it does not explain what operation the tool performs, side effects, or return structure.
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 short and free of filler, but it is not structured around the essential information an agent needs. The opening sentence is a disclaimer rather than a definition of the tool's purpose, so it fails to front-load the most critical content.
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 tool with four parameters, a nested input object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly incomplete. It leaves the agent unable to understand what 'briefs' means, what to pass as input, or what output to expect, especially given the ad-focused sibling tools.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the mode parameter's default behavior and loosely touches on provider via 'never Jev', but confidence_threshold and the actual structure/content of input remain unexplained. The schema's input description also points to nonexistent examples.
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 never states what the tool does; it only provides a caveat about rubric scores being judgments and demo mode being synthetic. There is no verb or resource indicating that this tool generates, retrieves, or evaluates briefs. The core purpose is entirely absent.
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 given about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as ad_tags, survival, or fatigue. The only contextual hint is that default demo mode uses synthetic decisions, but this does not help an agent decide between alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.