think_with_evidence

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

No annotations provided. The description mentions internal processes (e.g., evidence-aware critique) but fails to disclose side effects, authentication needs, or constraints. Behavioral traits beyond the listed features are unclear.

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 dense run-on sentence listing many capabilities. It lacks structure, making it hard to parse and not concise.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or how to choose among siblings, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, which is especially problematic for parameters like mode and strictness.

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 lists multiple capabilities (e.g., evidence-aware critique, argument mapping) but does not succinctly state a single verb-resource action. It is vague, using 'helps users think' without a concrete deliverable, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like critique_claim.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. It is labeled 'default user-facing thinking interface' but does not specify scenarios where alternatives like critique_claim or detect_solution_first_thinking would be more appropriate.

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