Get brand context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states read-only semantics and that it doesn't consume credits, and adds the resource-equivalence context. It doesn't describe return format, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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 a compact three sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful information: what it reads, how it compares to the resource alternative, and its safety/usage characteristics.

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 extremely simple (no params, no output schema), and the description provides all needed context: the resource being read, key fields, safety profile, and why this tool exists. The absence of an output schema doesn't create ambiguity since the description lists the returned brand attributes.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter handling.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('project's brand'), while enumerating the contained fields (voice, audience, colors, fonts, logo, target topics). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_brand and get_content.

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 explains that this tool is equivalent to the brand://current resource and is provided for clients that don't support resources, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no closer alternative exists among siblings (update_brand is the write counterpart).

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