branch_thought

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the return value ('Returns only metadata, not full content'), which clarifies output behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or other behavioral traits, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by stating the core action and a critical behavioral detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a key output limitation, but for a mutation tool, it should ideally include more on permissions, side effects, or error cases to be fully complete.

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 input schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'direction' values or context for 'thoughtId'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('new branch of thinking from an existing thought'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on branching rather than generation or searching, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives for full differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (generate_unreasonable_thought, search_thoughts). It mentions the tool's scope ('from an existing thought') but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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