begin_subagent_thought

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It discloses two engine modes and a failure case, but the engine parameter is not in the schema, creating inconsistency. Does not explain operation beyond engine modes.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core purpose, but includes details on an undocumented parameter, which adds unnecessary verbosity and confusion.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations and introduces ambiguity with a non-existent parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, and description fails to explain the three parameters (content, session_id, prompt_focus). Instead focuses on an undocumented 'engine' parameter.

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 it starts a subagent thought, but introduces an undocumented 'engine' parameter that confuses the purpose. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'begin_thought' explicitly.

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?

Implied usage: use for subagent thought initiation. Mentions a failure condition when a thought is already in progress, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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