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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the conceptual method (BDI modeling, Sally-Anne tests, inverse planning) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it mutates state, or what inputs are required beyond the schema.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently packages three related capabilities in one line, though the dense list sacrifices the detail needed for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and a one-line description. The description does not explain parameter relationships, prerequisites, return behavior, or when to choose this over sibling tools, so an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 9 undocumented parameters. It offers conceptual hints (BDI maps to beliefs/desires/intentions, false beliefs map to evaluate_false_belief_fact), but it does not explain key parameters like ground_truth, witness_event, candidate_goals, or action_trace, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 names specific actions and resources: 'model agents' BDI mental states', 'test false beliefs (Sally-Anne)', and 'infer goals via inverse planning'. It clearly goes beyond a tautology and gives an agent a concrete sense of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many cognitive sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied through the stated capabilities: an agent would invoke this when it needs to reason about mental states, false beliefs, or goal inference. However, no alternatives are named, and there is no guidance on when not to use this tool versus siblings like cognitive.infer or cognitive.resolve_intent.

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