request_critical_thinking_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: enforces completion of all six perspectives, allows multiple steps, and returns an analysis ID. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded action. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second adds process and output context. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately states the return value (analysis ID). It explains the enforcement behavior and multiphase nature, which is sufficient for initial use. Sibling tools for status and perspective addition provide further 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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond mentioning the returned analysis ID (matching 'analysisId'), but does not compensate for anything missing. 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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a new critical thinking analysis workspace') and a specific methodology ('Six Thinking Hats'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'request_synthesis_space' and 'add_perspective' by being the initiating step for a six-perspective process.

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 usage as the entry point for a systematic analysis process ('starts a multi-step systematic analysis process'). It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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