validate_brief

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It clearly states returns only validation status and schema errors, and does not judge truth, retrieve sources, or improve the brief. This discloses boundaries and behavioral traits well.

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 purpose, then constraints. No wasted words. Highly efficient.

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 validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers use cases, limitations, and return type. Missing details on output structure or error handling, but adequate given simplicity.

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% (1 param fully described). Description adds minimal value: 'Pass the parsed brief object' and 'against the bundled schema'—essentially restating schema metadata. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it validates an agenda brief against a schema, with specific use cases (before scoring, audit, publication). It explicitly distinguishes itself from other tools by stating what it does not do (judge truth, retrieve sources, improve the brief).

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('before scoring, evidence audit, or publication steps'). It implicitly indicates when not to use it by listing what it does not do, but does not name specific alternative sibling tools.

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