detect_solution_first_thinking

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the tool 'Flags' something without explaining what that means in terms of output (e.g., boolean, list, text) or side effects. It does not mention safety, reversibility, or auth requirements.

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 directly states the tool's purpose, with no filler words. It is appropriately concise but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 the simple input and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format or behavior (e.g., does it return a boolean, a flag, or a score?). Users would need additional context to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'input' (string, minLength 5) with 0% coverage in description. The description gives a hint that input is a draft but no details on format, expected content, or how it relates to the flagging. The description adds minimal meaning 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 the verb 'Flags' and clearly identifies the specific pattern it detects: jumping to an organizational solution before establishing problem, evidence, and causal mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_org_argument' or 'critique_org_text' which focus on different aspects.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The implication is for detecting solution-first thinking in drafts, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparisons with siblings are given.

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