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 're-embeds, re-extracts metadata', hinting at side effects, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the rewrite is destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's action and secondary effects. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 of a mutation tool ('Rewrite') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how the tool behaves, what inputs it expects (despite 0 params), what it returns, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 add parameter details, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is acceptable. It implies the tool operates on a thought's content, but without specifying how that content is identified or provided.

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 verb ('Rewrite') and resource ('a thought's content'), making the purpose understandable. It also mentions secondary effects ('re-embeds, re-extracts metadata'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'refresh_salience' or 'review_stale', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 'refresh_salience' and 'review_stale' that might involve updating or processing thoughts, there's no indication of prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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