Galaxy Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an additive operation ('Add a thought') and hints at iterative behavior with the 'next_thought_needed' parameter, but doesn't cover aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format. It adds some context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and earn their place: the first defines the purpose, and the second provides key usage guidance. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a 4-parameter tool. It covers the core purpose and a critical behavioral hint ('next_thought_needed'), but lacks details on mutations, errors, or return values, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'next_thought_needed=false when done', which provides usage context but no additional semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Add a thought') and resource ('to a thinking session'), and the purpose ('to reason through a problem step by step') is well-defined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'revise' or 'start_thinking', which may also involve thinking sessions.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'step by step' and setting 'next_thought_needed=false when done', which suggests iterative use. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'revise'), or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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