Galaxy Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'converts thoughts into executable operations' which implies a transformation process, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the core purpose without unnecessary details or repetition.

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 complexity (transforming thoughts to operations), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'action plan' contains, how 'executable operations' are structured, or what happens after generation. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how 'session_id' relates to 'completed thinking session' or clarify the 'operations' array usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('generate', 'converts') and resources ('action plan', 'completed thinking session', 'thoughts', 'executable operations'). It distinguishes the tool's function well, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_plan' or 'execute_plan'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plan', 'execute_plan', or 'revise'. It mentions converting thoughts to operations but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires a completed session) or exclusions, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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