add_thought

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that adding a thought creates a graph node and links with parents, but does not mention side effects, persistence, permissions, or limits. The description is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 extremely concise with three sentences. It front-loads the main action and immediately provides key guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (7 params, 4 required, enum, array) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It misses some behavioral details (e.g., return value), but overall is fairly complete for agent usage.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how 'parents' are used for linking and merging, and reinforces the 'type' constraint. It does not duplicate schema information unnecessarily.

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 action ('Record') and resource ('one reasoning step (a graph node)'). It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on adding nodes vs. revising or finalizing. It also specifies constraints like 'keep it to a single idea'.

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 explicit guidance on usage, such as using 'parents' to link nodes, merging branches, and creating sibling nodes. It implies when to use (to add a reasoning step) but lacks explicit exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings like 'revise_step' (though noted in schema).

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