process_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the iterative reasoning process but does not disclose potential side effects, logging, or safety implications beyond the cognitive process.

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 block of Chinese text that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage, though it could be slightly more condensed. It is front-loaded with the core idea.

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 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview of the thinking process. It lacks explanation of specific parameter values like stage enums, but schema covers those.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add additional semantics beyond the process explanation, earning the baseline 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: an adaptive thinking process to analyze problems by building, questioning, and modifying insights. It effectively distinguishes from sibling task management tools like 'analyze_task' or 'execute_task' by focusing on internal reasoning.

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?

While the description explains the iterative process and when to stop (set next_thought_needed to false), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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