brain_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It does disclose the non-obvious output trait ('synthesized answer'), but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or mention any side effects, latency, or failure modes. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the action ('Ask the brain a specific question'), delivers the output type, and closes with a crisp usage trigger—all in under 30 words.

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 simple query tool with two well-documented parameters and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output type, and when to invoke, though it doesn't detail response structure or error cases; the lack of an output schema makes those gaps slightly more noticeable.

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 the schema fully documents the 'q' and 'project_id' parameters. The description adds context by emphasizing 'specific question' and 'recall', but it doesn't add extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Ask') and resource ('the brain'), clearly stating it returns a synthesized answer from the brain's knowledge. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning this tool for recall of specific facts ('a prior decision, a preference, a pattern') rather than listing or storing memories.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use this when you need to recall something specific' with concrete examples. It doesn't name alternate sibling tools or give when-not scenarios, so it stops short of the full 5.

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