reasoning_preflight

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 states the tool returns a checklist and determines tools to activate, but does not explicitly indicate whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. This lack of clarity could confuse an agent about the tool's safety.

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 fairly concise, covering trigger, purpose, and parameters in a few lines. The use of an emoji adds a bit of informality but does not harm clarity. Slightly more streamlining could be achieved by omitting the emoji.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function, trigger, and parameters. It does not provide examples or explain handling of edge cases like complexity=0, but these are minor omissions for a preflight tool.

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 description provides thorough explanations for each parameter beyond the schema: task_description ('What the user wants to do'), intent ('Classified intent (build, debug, audit, deploy, etc.)'), and complexity ('Pre-computed complexity score (1-5), or 0 for auto-detect'). This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Determines what reasoning tools should be activated based on task complexity and intent. Returns a checklist of tools to invoke before execution.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'select_reasoning_protocol' by focusing on tool activation rather than protocol selection.

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 explicitly mentions automatic and manual triggers: 'Called AUTOMATICALLY by the orchestration interceptor before complex tasks. Can also be called manually.' This provides clear context on when to use it, though no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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