wisdom_cognitive_bias_scan

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 framework but does not detail what biases are checked, how results are presented, or any limitations (e.g., accuracy, processing time). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and output.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and usage context without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 tool's complexity (involves cognitive bias analysis) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output information, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 parameter 'reasoning' well-defined in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format specifics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('reasoning or decisions'), specifying the framework used ('Kahneman's System 1/2 framework'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on cognitive bias detection rather than clarification, grounding, mindfulness, or strategic analysis.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('before making important decisions'), which gives clear context for its application. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose this over 'wisdom_clarify' or 'wisdom_ground'.

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