Open-Brain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'salience-ordered filters' but doesn't explain what 'salience' means, how ordering works, or the tool's operational traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or mutation effects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('Browse thoughts with salience-ordered filters') and enumerates filter types without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's scope.

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 tool's complexity (filtering with multiple criteria), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It outlines the filtering capability but lacks details on behavior, output format, and sibling differentiation. For a tool with zero structured support, it provides a basic overview but misses deeper operational context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description lists filter types ('type, theme, topic, person, activity, days, min_quality'), which adds useful context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail how these filters are applied or their formats, slightly limiting utility.

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: 'Browse thoughts with salience-ordered filters.' It specifies the verb ('browse') and resource ('thoughts'), and mentions the filtering capability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_thoughts' or 'list_entities,' which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 lists filter parameters but doesn't explain when this browsing approach is preferred over other tools like 'search_thoughts' or 'deep_search.' There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context with siblings.

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