send_thought

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'background processing' without detailing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, processing time, or what happens after sending (e.g., async result, storage). This leaves critical operational aspects undisclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly brief, potentially under-specifying the tool's purpose, which slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on processing behavior, return values, or error handling, making it insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and unclear sibling differentiation in a complex server context.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('send') and resource ('a thought'), but it's vague about what 'background processing' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'start_contemplation' or 'get_insights', leaving the specific purpose unclear beyond a generic submission.

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 like 'start_contemplation' or 'set_threshold'. The description implies submission for processing but offers no context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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