reasoning_guard

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 asserts a side effect ('blocks deliberation tokens') but does not say whose tokens, whether the block is reversible, what happens to already-emitted reasoning, or any permission/authorization requirement. A behavioral claim this consequential needs far more disclosure than one sentence.

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?

A single compact sentence with the operative behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than padded, so length is not the problem.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the effect on the agent's own reasoning and the result of the call. Neither the mechanism nor the outcome is described, leaving the agent unable to predict consequences.

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% and there is one optional parameter ('request'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or effect for that parameter — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific function — fixing a decision before reasoning occurs and blocking deliberation tokens — which is more than a restatement of the name. However the abstraction ('reasoning protocol') leaves it unclear what object the tool acts on and what an agent concretely gets back, so it is only vaguely separable from siblings like focus_on_task.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools (focus_on_task, suppress_refusal, etc.). The agent must guess the trigger condition entirely.

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