lotuswisdom

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the sequential workflow requirement, the prohibition against premature wisdom output, and the categorization of tags into functional roles. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 with purpose and usage guidelines. The tag categorization is necessary but somewhat dense. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational information, though the tag list could be more efficiently presented.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the multi-step workflow, tag semantics, and operational constraints. The main gap is lack of information about return values or output format, but given the tool's contemplative nature, the description covers most essential usage context.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'tag' parameter through categorization and workflow rules, but doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters like 'content' or 'stepNumber' beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is for 'contemplative reasoning' and specifies use cases like 'complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding' and 'contradictions requiring integration'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'lotuswisdom_summary' by focusing on the reasoning process rather than summarization. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool.

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 workflow guidance: 'Always start with tag='begin'' and 'Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY''. It also categorizes tags into functional groups (process, meta-cognitive, non-dual, skillful-means, pause), giving clear context for when to use different tags. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the structured guidance is comprehensive.

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