thunder_think

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a model is queried, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the return value looks like, how long it may take, or whether the returned 'next action' is text, a command, or something else.

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 filler, which is appropriately concise. Its brevity is not wasted, though it leaves important specifics unstated.

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 role as a planning step among concrete action tools, the description should explain how the returned action relates to the sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, it leaves critical context missing: what the model returns, how to interpret it, and how to proceed after calling this tool.

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 single parameter 'goal' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely repeats the word 'goal' without explaining format, level of detail, or examples. This gives no additional meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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 action: querying a named model (stewmind-1.7b) for a next action toward a goal. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like thunder_click or thunder_open, which perform concrete operations rather than planning. The only weakness is that 'stewmind-1.7b' is unexplained, leaving some ambiguity about what kind of system is being asked.

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?

It implies the tool is used when a goal needs a next action, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives among the many thunder_* action tools. An agent must infer the planning role without being told whether to call this before or after the sibling action tools.

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