think_about_whether_you_are_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It merely instructs to call the tool, with no explanation of what happens when called, whether it is read-only, what output it produces, or any side effects. This is a critical gap.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It is not overly verbose, but the lack of informative content makes it borderline under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 low complexity (0 params) and the existence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain the tool's purpose, behavioral effects, or expected output. It leaves the agent without sufficient context to understand why this tool is important or what it does beyond its name.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable since there are none to clarify.

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 when to call the tool ('whenever you feel that you are done'), but does not explicitly state what the tool does beyond its name. It conveys the general purpose of self-checking completion, but is vague and does not distinguish clearly from sibling think_* 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?

Provides a clear when-to-use condition ('when you feel done'), which is directly actionable. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, falling short of the full 5-point standard.

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