deep-thinker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions querying and visualizing but doesn't address critical traits like whether it's read-only or mutative, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with multiple actions and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Each phrase ('Query and visualize the thought graph', 'View the DAG structure...') earns its place by outlining functionality without redundancy. Minor improvements could include more structured formatting, but it's efficient overall.

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 complexity (multiple actions, 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints needed for effective use. The description should compensate for missing structured data but falls short, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, providing good documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing general capabilities ('view the DAG structure, find paths, inspect branches, and get statistics') that loosely map to action enum values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding significantly.

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's purpose as 'Query and visualize the thought graph' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate', 'metacog', 'prune', 'reset', and 'think' by focusing on graph exploration rather than modification or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool, keeping it at a 4 instead of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists capabilities but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like 'evaluate' or 'metacog'. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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