get_verbal_reasoning_scaffold

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It explicitly declares the tool is read-only and lists what it provides and does not provide, such as not solving questions or computing answers. This gives a clear understanding of the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second lists its capabilities and limitations. No unnecessary words are present.

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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly explains the tool's role as a scaffold for verbal reasoning, differentiates it from solving tools, and lists the content it provides. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is beyond the schema. Following the guideline that 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, this score is appropriate as no parameter information is needed.

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 that the tool returns a 'read-only method scaffold' specifically for verbal reasoning, and lists the provided guidance types. It also explicitly states what it does not do (solve questions, compute answers, select options), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that solve or answer questions.

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 when to use the tool (for obtaining scaffolding for verbal reasoning) and when not to use it (when solving is needed), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not scenarios beyond stating it does not solve. The sibling tools include other scaffolds for different reasoning types, but no direct comparison is made.

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