Think

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining key features (subSteps, alternatives, quickExtension), mentioning it replaces extend_thought tool, and describing what it returns (progress bar, confidence, next action hint). However, it doesn't cover all behavioral aspects like error conditions, performance characteristics, or side effects that might be relevant for a complex tool with 14 parameters.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('Use for:', 'Features:', 'Returns...'), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place by providing specific guidance or information. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the tool's purpose, usage context, key features, and return information. However, given the complexity and lack of output schema, it could provide more detail about the structure of returned data or error conditions to be fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about subSteps ('Micro-action plan'), alternatives ('Quick options comparison'), and quickExtension ('Inline critique/elaboration'), but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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's purpose: 'Add a thought to the reasoning chain.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that explains what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from its siblings (think_batch, think_done, think_recall, think_reset), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'Use for:' section provides clear context about when to use this tool: for complex multi-step problems, planning with revision, and analysis needing course correction. This gives good guidance but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide specific alternatives among the sibling tools, preventing a perfect score.

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