sally_brainstorm

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: data is never stored or used for training, it is read-only ('never modifies files'), and it includes premium usage limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: starts with core purpose, then usage guidelines, privacy, and premium info. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. No waste, but could be tighter.

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 has 2 parameters (both documented in schema), no output schema, but the description explains the return format ('markdown verdict with risks and a bright side'), along with privacy and limits. Enough for the agent to understand behavior fully.

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% and the schema descriptions are detailed. The tool description adds only a minor confirmation that only the provided description is sent to the backend, not additional semantics. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to evaluate an idea or architecture for scalability flaws, using a specific verb ('Pitch...Sally names the three ways it falls apart'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., sally_roast, sally_explain) by focusing on pre-build critique and scalability.

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 explicitly says when to use ('Use when the user wants feedback on an idea... before building it') and provides context about premium tiers and limits. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or directly contrast with sibling tools, which would have earned a 5.

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