Galaxy Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), what the state includes (e.g., steps, status), error handling, or rate limits, making it inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the 'current state' includes (e.g., session metadata, thinking steps), how it behaves (e.g., read-only, error cases), and ties to sibling tools, making it insufficient for full understanding despite the simple schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, documenting the single parameter 'session_id' clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying it retrieves state for a specific session, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like session ID format or sources, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current state of a thinking session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sessions' or 'get_plan', which would require specifying this retrieves a specific session's state rather than listing sessions or getting plans.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a session_id from 'list_sessions' or 'start_thinking'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_plan' for plan states or 'list_sessions' for session lists, leaving usage context unclear.

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