wisdom_clarify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method (Socratic questioning) and goal (better understanding) but lacks details on what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it generates questions, provides analysis, requires specific inputs beyond the statement, or has any limitations like response length or processing time. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context without any redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity of a tool that applies Socratic questioning, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., questions, insights, or a structured analysis), how it handles different types of statements, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'statement' parameter well-documented as 'The belief, position, or concept to examine.' The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or formatting tips, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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: 'Apply Socratic questioning to clarify terms, examine assumptions, and reach better understanding.' It specifies the method (Socratic questioning), actions (clarify, examine, reach), and goal (better understanding). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wisdom_cognitive_bias_scan' or 'wisdom_ground' beyond the general 'thinking feels unclear' context.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Use when thinking feels unclear,' which gives a general context for application. However, it doesn't offer explicit when-not-to-use advice or name alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer distinctions based on tool names alone.

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