mind_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does indicate a read-only listing operation and 'live memory counts' (suggesting dynamic values), but it does not mention potential errors, permissions, or ordering. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a compact return format. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

For a parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and the nature of the return data, and the output schema handles detailed return value documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description appropriately omits parameter details. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, as there is nothing to document.

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 it lists the user's mind branches with live memory counts. The verb 'list' distinguishes it from sibling operations like mind_branch (create/switch) and mind_state, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when one needs to enumerate branches, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It lacks the explicit guidance seen in higher-scoring examples, but the tool's simplicity makes the usage fairly evident.

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