critique_current_thought

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions an adjacency contract but does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or is destructive. Key behavioral traits like locking the thought or resource consumption are omitted.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence uses jargon ('adjacency contract') that may confuse some agents. It could be restructured for clarity without adding length.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, with many sibling tools and no explanation of when to use this versus others (e.g., submit_critique), the description lacks workflow context. Behavioral details are also missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `lens` parameter (optional, default null, server picks if omitted), but the required `session_id` parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap.

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 opens a critique round and returns a lens template, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like submit_critique by focusing on initiation. However, it could be more explicit about what a 'critique round' entails.

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 guidance on when to omit the `lens` parameter to let the server choose, and mentions the adjacency contract. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives for the critique workflow.

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