Open-Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation and breakdowns but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, how it handles large datasets, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 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 lists key features (aggregate counts, breakdowns, top items). It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the resource (e.g., 'thoughts') for clarity.

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 implied by aggregation and breakdowns, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the aggregated results look like, how 'top' items are determined, or any limitations. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none to explain. This aligns with the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states the tool aggregates counts with breakdowns by type/theme, top topics, people, and activity, which gives a general idea of its function. However, it's somewhat vague about the specific resource being aggregated (presumably 'thoughts' based on the name and sibling tools) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from siblings like 'analyze' or 'search_thoughts' that might also provide insights.

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. With siblings like 'analyze', 'deep_search', and 'search_thoughts' that might offer overlapping analytical functions, there's no indication of when this aggregation tool is preferred or what specific scenarios it's designed for.

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