resolve_brand

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

Without annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool resolves tokens and shows brand overrides, and mentions truncation behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe to call repeatedly, though this is implied by the context.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a behavioral note and a usage hint. Every sentence is meaningful and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description could better explain the structure of the returned tokens (e.g., a list of token objects with properties). The truncation hint implies pagination, but the overall output format is vague. It is adequate but not complete.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds only the truncation handling hint, which is already partially covered by the limit parameter's schema description. Thus, the description adds minimal semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves design tokens for a brand, optionally combined with a theme, and shows brand overrides. It is specific about the verb and resource but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like resolve_theme or diff_brands.

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 provides guidance on handling truncation ('When truncated, offer to fetch more by calling again with limit set to the total count'), but does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use resolve_theme for theme-only resolution).

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