propose_and_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it adds and evaluates a child thought, implying persistence and mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, return behavior, or whether the evaluation is stored. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Add a child thought and evaluate it in one call') and then adds the key differentiator ('auto-evaluation helper, optional multi-criteria fields'). No word is wasted.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient operational context. It does not explain required fields, how criteriaScores are used, what the response contains, or the relationship to the tree structure. An agent would need to infer most invocation details from the schema alone.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by mentioning 'optional multi-criteria fields', which hints at criteriaCores and related scoring parameters, but does not meaningfully enhance schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a child thought and evaluate it in one call'. It clearly names the combined action and differentiates it from siblings like add_child and evaluate_thought by presenting itself as an auto-evaluation helper, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'in one call (auto-evaluation helper)' implies the intended use as a convenience wrapper around adding and evaluating, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like evaluate_thought or generate_and_evaluate_children. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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