Ultrabrain Validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds a list of what is checked but does not disclose additional traits such as permissions or side effects. With annotations present, the description adds modest context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Check', no extraneous words. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a list) but is efficient and clear.

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?

Given 13 sibling tools and no output schema, the description lacks details about return format or scoring. It doesn't explain the effect of the 'strict' parameter or what the output looks like, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's complete behavior.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (session_id, strict, response_format). Input schema has 67% coverage (descriptions for session_id and response_format), but the description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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 'Check' and identifies the resource 'reasoning session' with five clear aspects (evidence, alternatives, verification, bias, closure gaps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ultrabrain_analyze or ultrabrain_review.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ultrabrain_analyze or ultrabrain_review. It does not mention when-not scenarios or prerequisites.

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