think_next

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions sending an answer and deciding continuation, but it omits details about state changes, error handling, or required authentication. The description is insufficient for the agent to anticipate all behavioral consequences.

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 sentence, making it efficient. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, and the structure does not front-load key information about usage or behavior.

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 absence of an output schema and the existence of a sibling tool, the description should explain what a 'pass' is, how to determine if finished, and how the session_id is used. It fails to provide a complete context for reliable tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 50% (only 'answer' has a description). The tool's description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, leaving the 'session_id' parameter completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool sends a pass answer and either continues or finalizes, but the term 'pass' is undefined and the distinction from the sibling tool 'think' is unclear. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 'think'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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