score_current_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains input format and return value but does not mention side effects, required prior steps, or whether the tool modifies state. The word 'Self-score' implies a read operation, but this is not confirmed.

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 with two sentences, each conveying essential information. The first sentence covers purpose and tolerance, the second covers input flexibility and output. There is no clutter, though breaking into bullet points could improve scanability slightly.

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?

The description explains the output as a convergence verdict ('whether to commit or run another lens'), which is helpful. However, it does not detail the 7 utility dimensions, nor the exact format of the verdict (e.g., boolean or string). Given an output schema exists, these details could be deferred, but the description leaves a gap.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining that 'scores' accepts a JSON object, fenced JSON, or text like 'correctness: 0.8, ...'. This clarifies the flexible format, which the schema only hints at via anyOf. The session_id parameter lacks extra context, but the primary parameter is well explained.

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 self-scores the refined thought across 7 utility dimensions and returns a convergence verdict. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like critique_current_thought or refine_current_thought, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 mentions partial input tolerance and that missing dimensions carry forward, which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., critique_current_thought) or when not to use it.

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