Mind Reason

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about multi-step reasoning and confidence labeling, but does not elaborate on behavioral details like state management, session use, or output specifics.

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 with purpose and use cases. It efficiently conveys key information without unnecessary words.

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 (7 parameters, multiple modes) and existence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It lacks details on how modes affect behavior and what the output contains, though the output schema may cover that.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description should explain parameters. It lists mode options but does not describe other parameters like query, session_id, plan_id, etc. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 identifies the tool as for multi-step reasoning, planning, and reflection with confidence labeling, listing specific use cases like complex analysis and plan generation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arif_judge_deliberate, which may have similar purposes.

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 use cases (complex analysis, hypothesis evaluation, etc.), implying when to use the tool. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools, which would be helpful given the many alternatives.

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