chatgpt_list_thinking_levels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it lists only 'actually available' levels, not all possible ones, and it indicates a UI navigation path. However, it doesn't describe return format, how availability is determined, or any prerequisites (e.g., login). For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, the UI path, and the scope efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 parameterless, simple listing tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the source (page hierarchy) and the output concept (available thinking levels). It lacks details on return format or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no missing parameter information to penalize.

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 function: listing the thinking intensities actually available to the account. The verb 'list' and resource 'thinking intensities' are specific, and the scope ('actually available') differentiates it from a generic list-all tool. The sibling tool chatgpt_select_thinking_level is clearly for selection, so this list tool is distinguishable.

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 the page hierarchy context ('current level → advanced → thinking intensity') that implies when to use this tool (to discover available options), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of sibling tools like chatgpt_select_thinking_level for choosing a level, so usage is only implied.

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