deep-thinker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions like 'remove dead ends' and 'consolidate redundant branches,' which imply destructive changes, but doesn't clarify the permanence of these changes, potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool with multiple actions including 'prune' (which suggests deletion), this is a significant gap in transparency about its operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Prune and optimize the thought graph'), lists specific actions, and ends with a usage hint. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying functionality and context, with no redundant or vague phrasing. A slight deduction because the second sentence could be more tightly integrated, but overall it's efficient.

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 including potentially destructive ones like 'prune'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., success status, optimized graph details), error conditions, or detailed behavioral traits. For a tool with 3 parameters and varied operations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (action, nodeId, reason) with descriptions and enums for 'action.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., when nodeId is required) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: 'Prune and optimize the thought graph' with specific actions like 'remove dead ends, consolidate redundant branches, and optimize reasoning paths.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate' or 'graph' by focusing on maintenance and optimization rather than evaluation or visualization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'metacog' or 'reset'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 context: 'Helps maintain graph efficiency during deep reasoning,' suggesting it should be used for ongoing optimization in reasoning processes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset' (which might clear the graph) or 'think' (which might generate new nodes), and it doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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