auto_structure_thought

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: it is write-only ('Firestoreへの書き込みだけを行う'), the structuring logic is Claude's responsibility, depth is arbitrary rather than fixed at 3, and only existing maps are valid targets. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, error or failure behavior, and reversibility of the write.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by the depth-flexibility note, the division-of-labor clarification, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes, though the density makes it slightly harder to parse than an ideal definition.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter sourcing, and the non-obvious division of labor. It lacks only return/error behavior, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine decision guidance beyond the schema: parentElementId should be derived by inspecting list_elements output, and mapId comes from list_maps. These are procedural instructions the schema alone does not provide.

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 names a clear verb+resource — adding Claude's hierarchical thought structure into an existing map — and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_map ('対象は既存マップのみ...新規作成が必要ならcreate_mapを先に呼ぶ'). It is less clear about how it differs from other write-oriented siblings like edit_element or import_markdown_context.

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?

It gives concrete routing guidance: look at list_elements results to decide parentElementId, and call create_map first if a new map is needed. That is an explicit alternative and prerequisite. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool versus sibling write tools.

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