Think Done

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 describes what the tool checks (low confidence thoughts, unaddressed blockers, ignored thoughts ratio) and mentions the export option, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it modifies any data, or what the typical response looks like.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It uses bullet points efficiently, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The four-line format with clear sections (purpose, mandate, checks, options) is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage mandate well, and mentions some verification checks. However, it doesn't explain what happens after verification, what the tool actually returns, or important behavioral aspects like whether this concludes a session or just analyzes it.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'exportReport' as an option and implies verification checks, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Finish thinking session: verify logic and optionally export.' It specifies the verb ('finish'), resource ('thinking session'), and core actions (verification and export). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like think_reset or think_recall, which likely handle different aspects of thinking sessions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'MANDATORY before final answer on complex problems.' This gives explicit guidance on its necessity in specific scenarios. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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