Thinking Time Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds behavioral context: inference from gaps, non-direct observability, and a caveat explaining inference limitations, which exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Description is front-loaded with summary, followed by clear explanation of inference method and returns. Each sentence adds value; minor redundancy in Args section but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return types (per-turn breakdowns, aggregate stats, tool baselines, caveat). Input schema covers all parameters. Inference method is explained, providing sufficient context for correct usage.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter meanings from schema (e.g., 'Filter to a specific session') without adding new semantics beyond the inference 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?

Description clearly states 'Get inferred thinking-time breakdown for recent turns', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on thinking time inference, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

Description explains how inference works (initial gap, interleaved gaps, final gap) and what is returned, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct sibling exists.

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