evaluate_thought

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

No annotations provided, and description only mentions scoring without disclosing side effects, permissions, or what happens upon evaluation (e.g., storage, notifications).

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?

Single sentence of 13 words is concise, but additional structural elements (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

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?

With 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to fully inform invocation; lacks return value or behavioral details.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value by noting 'optional multi-criteria fields' but doesn't detail nested criteriaScores.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'evaluate' and resource 'thought', and specifies scoring range (0-100) and optional multi-criteria fields, distinguishing it from siblings like 'verify_thought'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., verify_thought), nor any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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