wisdom_mindful_pause

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 'STOP practice' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., steps involved, expected duration, or what the tool actually does operationally). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior, such as whether it provides guidance, logs data, or interacts with external systems.

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 very concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (a mindfulness practice tool with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and when to use it but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, it should do more to explain what the tool actually does and what results to expect.

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 'situation' documented as 'What's prompting the need for pause.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics without extra help from the description.

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: 'Create space between stimulus and response using the STOP practice.' It specifies the verb ('create space'), method ('STOP practice'), and context ('between stimulus and response'), which is more specific than just restating the name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'wisdom_ground' or 'wisdom_clarify', which might also involve mindfulness or reflection.

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 clear usage context: 'Use when feeling reactive or rushed.' This gives a specific scenario for when to invoke the tool, helping the agent decide appropriately. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as comparing it to 'wisdom_stoic_dichotomy' for emotional regulation.

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