Sequential Thinking & Branching

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that thoughts can be revised and branched, which is a real behavioral trait, but it does not disclose the stateful workflow (that thoughtNumber/totalThoughts drive continuity) or what the tool returns. Moderate added value over annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core capability set leads. It is efficient, though for a 14-parameter, branch/revision-capable tool one more sentence of workflow framing would have earned its place.

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 complex iterative tool with 14 parameters, branching and revision semantics, and no output schema, one sentence is thin. It does not explain how to drive the loop (advancing thoughtNumber, ending with nextThoughtNeeded=false) or how branches interleave with sequential steps, so an agent must reconstruct the protocol from the schema alone.

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 93%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters, including the mandatory label and narration fields. The description's mention of hypothesis/revision/branching is effectively a restatement of schema fields (hypothesis, isRevision, branchId) rather than adding syntax or sequencing meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 names the resource (a reasoning engine) and its distinguishing capabilities: iteration, hypothesis tracking, revision, and branching. It is clear what the tool is for, but it offers no differentiation from nearby reasoning-oriented siblings such as kilo_grill_plan or kilo_trace_root_cause.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before planning, to drive multi-step analysis, or when to prefer it over kilo_grill_plan or kilo_trace_root_cause. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition from the tool name alone.

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