Evaluate Thought

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 'evaluate and update', implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if this affects other thoughts or memory), error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic input-output.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has an output schema (not provided in details but indicated as present), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and moderate complexity (3 required parameters), the description is minimal—it covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'thoughtId', 'confidence', and 'reasoning'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or contextual usage of parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Evaluate and update the confidence level of a thought' clearly states the action (evaluate and update) and resource (confidence level of a thought), but it's somewhat vague about what 'evaluate' entails beyond updating confidence. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'updateLongTermMemory' or 'completeThoughtProcess' which might also involve confidence adjustments in a thought system.

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 'updateLongTermMemory', 'completeThoughtProcess', and 'branchThought' that might handle thought modifications, there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.

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