Think About Whether You Are Done

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this (e.g., what 'thinking' entails, if it returns a result, or any side effects). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value, meeting the baseline for annotations present.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the usage condition. It is front-loaded with the key instruction and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (low, with no parameters) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains when to call the tool but lacks details on what the tool does internally or what the output might indicate. With structured data covering safety and output, the description is complete enough for basic use but could be more informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters, so it naturally compensates for the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameter information is required.

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 is tautological, essentially restating the tool name ('think about whether you are done') as an instruction to call it when done. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., evaluates completion criteria, returns a decision, triggers a state change) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'think_about_collected_information' or 'think_about_task_adherence'. The purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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 context on when to use the tool ('whenever you feel that you are done with what the user has asked for'), which is explicit guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., during intermediate steps) or alternatives (e.g., other 'think' tools), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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