pplx_claude_sonnet_think

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

The description mentions 'extended thinking' and cost, but does not detail behavioral traits like response length, rate limits, or how thinking mode affects output. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and falls short.

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, focused sentence with a key cost note. It is free of redundancy, though slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema and a complex thinking model, the description should clarify what 'extended thinking' means for output (e.g., chain-of-thought, reasoning steps). It lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'query' or 'source_focus' parameters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the trivial schema, leaving agents uninformed about parameter usage.

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 Claude Sonnet 4.6 with extended thinking and specifies its cost. The name and title further reinforce the model identity, distinguishing it from non-thinking siblings like pplx_claude_sonnet.

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 implies use for extended thinking tasks via the 'thinking' label and cost mention, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., pplx_claude_sonnet, pplx_gpt55_thinking). No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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