begin_thinking

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a sessionId and protocol instructions and initiates a new session. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or any constraints (e.g., session limits). The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive for a creation tool.

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, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial sequential guidance. No redundant or extraneous information is present, making it highly 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's role as the entry point and mentions return values. While it doesn't elaborate on the protocol instructions, this is acceptable given the likely complexity of a reasoning session starter. The description covers the essential information.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add information beyond what the schema provides (the default behavior for title is already in the schema). Therefore, the description adds no extra value to parameter semantics, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's action: starting a new Thought Graph reasoning session. It specifies the verb 'Start' and the resource 'Thought Graph reasoning session', and distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'Call this FIRST, then build the reasoning with add_thought.' This provides a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives explicit sequential guidance: 'Call this FIRST, then build the reasoning with add_thought.' This indicates when to use the tool relative to its siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sequential hint, which is a minor gap for a perfect score.

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