Think

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

Annotations only include 'openWorldHint: false' with no readOnly or destructive hints. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns 'progress, surfaced guidance, and one next action'. It does not disclose effects on state, authorization needs, or parameter interaction behaviors.

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 highly concise, using only 4 sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by sibling differentiations and a summary of returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite 15 parameters and nested objects, the description is brief. It omits details on how parameters like 'subSteps', 'alternatives', or 'quickExtension' work together. The absence of an output schema increases the need for behavioral description, which is lacking.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating the tool's purpose and return value. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 adds one evolving reasoning step for iterative work, revisions, or branches. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives like 'think_batch' and 'think_cycle'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (iterative work, revisions, branches) and provides clear alternatives (think_batch, think_cycle, think_logic). However, it does not include explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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