get_user_thinking_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a model with confidence scores, but does not state whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The name implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences. The 'TRIGGER' prefix effectively front-loads the purpose. No extraneous information is present.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate information about what is returned (thinking patterns with confidence scores). However, it could optionally mention that it is a lightweight introspection tool or note any prerequisites.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Following the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the user's thinking model and adaptations, with confidence scores. The verb 'get' and trigger phrase specify its purpose, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_thinking_patterns' or 'update_thinking_pattern'.

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?

The description provides a 'TRIGGER' context, indicating when to call the tool (to understand how the user thinks). However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like 'search_thinking_patterns'.

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