cognitive_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it analyzes and answers a question, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence is somewhat vague ('with data') and could be more informative without being substantially longer.

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 that an output schema exists (but is not visible), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still fails to explain the parameter's role or provide enough context for the agent to use the tool effectively. The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and minimal schema info.

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 has one parameter 'domain' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, providing no additional meaning or guidance on its purpose, valid values, or effect. The schema coverage is minimal and the description fails to compensate.

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 analyzes cognitive patterns and problem-solving approaches, answering a specific question ('When do I think best?'). This provides a clear verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like brain_stats or what_do_i_think, so it misses a top 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 when one wants to analyze cognitive patterns or determine optimal thinking times, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to conditions, and no contextual cues for selection.

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