Ultrabrain Think

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond listing fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that tries to cover many aspects, resulting in dense jargon. It is not wasteful but could be clearer and more structured.

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 33 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation guidance, the description is insufficient. A single sentence does not adequately explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or how to use it effectively.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. The fields are well-documented in the schema, but the description adds no extra context.

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 mentions 'reasoning gate for code work, branching, revisions, quality metrics, bias checks, confidence, and meta checkpoints,' which gives a general idea but uses jargon ('LCV reasoning gate') and lacks a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ultrabrain_analyze or ultrabrain_branch only vaguely.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ultrabrain_analyze or ultrabrain_branch. The description mentions 'code work' but does not clarify context or exclusions.

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