rct_think

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a non-destructive operation, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds the claim that it executes a specific mental process to reduce hallucination, but it does not clarify what the tool actually returns, how the 7 stages behave, or whether it produces intermediate reasoning. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant clauses. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's function and purpose, though 'authentic' and 'mental OS' are slightly stylistic rather than purely informational.

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?

The presence of an output schema and the readOnlyHint annotation covers some missing return and safety details. Still, the description leaves ambiguity around what '7-Stage Reverse Component Thinking' actually involves and how it should be invoked in practice, given that the sibling tools suggest a wider workflow context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters including their optional/required status and role. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships, so it adds no value beyond the schema, but none is strictly required given the coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Executes') and names a distinct resource ('Delentia 7-Stage Reverse Component Thinking mental OS'), making its core function recognizable as a structured reasoning/thinking tool. It also frames the intended effect ('eliminate hallucination'), though the phrasing is somewhat abstract and does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like evaluate_fdia or compress_context.

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?

Usage context is implied through 'eliminate hallucination' and the problem_statement schema description ('complex query, or dilemma requiring rigorous reverse deconstruction'). However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or references to alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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