Get Optimal Cognitive Mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what happens on errors. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter. Every word earns its place, 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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are important even for simple tools. It meets basic needs but leaves the agent to guess about proper application.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'taskType'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid 'task type' or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recommended cognitive mode') with a specific purpose ('for a specific task type'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'switchCognitiveMode' (which changes mode) and 'getThinkingStats' (which provides statistics), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from related tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with siblings like 'getThinkingStats' or 'switchCognitiveMode'. The agent must infer usage from context alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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