research_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a stateful mode change via 'enter research mode' and 'iterative state tracking,' but does not disclose persistence, side effects, required state format, auth, or what happens to previous state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though its brevity leaves no room for the richer guidance a stateful four-parameter tool needs.

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 four required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It communicates the general purpose but omits parameter semantics and behavioral specifics.

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 0% for four required parameters. The description vaguely maps 'programming topic' to topic and 'state tracking' to previousState/currentState/nextSteps, but it does not explain what each parameter should contain or how they relate.

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 names a specific action (enter research mode) and resource/purpose (explore a programming topic in depth with iterative state tracking). It is clear what the tool is for, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as reflect_task, plan_task, or process_thought.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to explore a programming topic in depth with iterative state tracking. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the sibling tools.

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