request_thinking_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool shows thinking prompts and questions, and it exposes the ordering constraint relative to add_perspective. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or is read-only, though 'shows' implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the essential prerequisite in the second sentence without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it does, what it returns (prompts and questions), and the required ordering. It lacks detail on error handling or exact return format, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is complete enough.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (analysisId, projectName, perspective) with 100% coverage. The description adds minor context by referring to 'that hat color' linking to the perspective parameter, but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool requests Six Thinking Hats guidance for a specific perspective, and mentions it shows thinking prompts and questions. It also distinguishes from siblings by stating it must be called before add_perspective, clarifying its role as a preparatory step.

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 explicitly instructs that it must be called before add_perspective for the same hat color, providing clear timing and differentiation from the sibling tool. This gives an explicit when-to-use and references an alternative.

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