Switch Cognitive Mode

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 switching modes but doesn't describe what happens after switching (e.g., does it affect ongoing thought chains, require permissions, have side effects, or include confirmation). For a tool that likely alters thinking behavior, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Switch the cognitive mode'), though it could be more specific. There's no wasted text, but it might be too brief for a tool with potential behavioral implications.

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 moderate complexity (affecting thinking processes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter nuances, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer correct invocation.

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%, with the schema providing clear descriptions for both parameters ('mode' with enum values and 'chainId' as optional). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what each mode entails or how chainId applies the mode. Baseline is 3 since 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Switch the cognitive mode for thinking processes', which includes a verb ('Switch') and resource ('cognitive mode'), but it's vague about what 'thinking processes' refers to and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'getOptimalModeForTask' or 'evaluateThought'. It doesn't specify whether this affects current thinking, future thinking, or specific chains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to switch modes (e.g., during stuck thinking, for different tasks), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'getOptimalModeForTask' (which might suggest modes) or 'startThoughtProcess' (which might involve mode selection). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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