Think Cycle

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

The description reveals the multi-pass cycle behavior (start, step, gate, finalize) and the interplay with backends through backendMode. It adds constraint handling guidance. Annotations provide openWorldHint=false, which describes bounding of effects; the description complements this with workflow details. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concisely structured with a clear first sentence, a step-by-step flow paragraph, a sibling comparison sentence, and a bullet list for interop modes. Every sentence adds value; no wasted text.

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 complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations), the description provides a good overview of the lifecycle and usage. It covers when to use, the start-step-finalize flow, and interop. However, it does not explain the gate mechanism or stability concept mentioned in parameter descriptions, which would be helpful for full understanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 16 parameters. The description does not document parameters individually but integrates some into the workflow (e.g., constraints, constraintCheck, backendMode). This adds marginal value beyond schema, so score is above baseline 3.

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 as an enforced multi-pass reasoning loop for high-risk or ambiguous work. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to use 'think' for ordinary iterative work and warning against using 'think_done' for a cycle. The verb 'run' and resource 'reasoning loop' are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for high-risk or ambiguous work') and when not to ('for ordinary iterative work use think'). It also warns against using 'think_done' for a cycle, giving clear alternatives. The interop section further clarifies backend mode selection.

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