brief_answer

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses key behaviors: unanswered fields get researched defaults and the assumption ledger is auditable and reversible. This covers the main side effects of the 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The action and key details are front-loaded, making it easy to understand.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is complete. It explains the core functionality and side effects, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the description adds value by specifying that 'prompt' should be the same as in brief_start, and 'answers' expects question IDs to answers with instruction to omit unknowns. This greatly clarifies usage.

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 'Submit brief answers' as a verb+resource pair. It further explains that unanswered fields are handled with researched defaults and recorded in an assumption ledger, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like brief_start.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (after brief_start, when submitting answers) and what happens with omissions (defaults, ledger). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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