select_thought

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 the operation changes state ('Mark') and requires prior verification, but doesn't disclose whether selection is reversible, whether selecting one thought deselects others, or what downstream effects selection may have. For a simple state-changing tool this is marginal but not fully transparent.

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 sentence with a parenthetical precondition, containing no redundant words. The action is front-loaded, and the constraint is attached with minimal overhead.

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 two-parameter state-marking tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the action, the target resource, and the required precondition. It does not explain failure behavior or downstream effects, but these are less critical for such a simple operation.

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%, as both treeId and thoughtId have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, 'Mark', and a clear resource, 'thought', and names the resulting state: 'selected for further exploration'. It distinguishes select_thought from sibling tools like verify_thought or evaluate_thought by targeting a selection state, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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 parenthetical gives an explicit precondition: the thought must be verified first. This gives clear context that select_thought should not be called before verify_thought, effectively excluding unverified thoughts. It does not describe alternative tools or broader use cases, but the workflow implication is clear.

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