brain_identity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'Load' implying a read operation and describes scope ('lighter', 'without full memory load'), which transparently indicates the tool is a non-destructive subset read. It does not explicitly state side effects or return format, but the read nature is clear.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every phrase earns its place, comparing to brain_context and giving a use case.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description lists the loaded items and contrasts with brain_context, providing enough context for an agent to decide. Could mention that project_id defaults, but schema already covers it.

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?

The sole parameter project_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed 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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('the brain's identity'), enumerating its contents. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling brain_context by noting it's lighter. This fully clarifies what the tool does.

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?

States 'Lighter than brain_context' and 'Use when you need the brand voice without the full memory load.' This gives explicit when-to-use guidance and names the alternative. No exclusions, but clear enough.

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