reasoning_critique

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 states what it returns but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, requires special permissions, or handles errors. There is no mention of cost, rate limits, or what happens with invalid fact IDs.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the return value summary is succinct and clear. No unnecessary elaboration exists.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview of the return values but does not define the meaning of 'stability score' or 'status'. It is adequate for invoking the tool, but an agent might need more context on how to interpret the results. The lack of usage guidance further limits completeness.

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 schema only defines 'fact_ids' as an array of strings, but the description clarifies that these are specific fact IDs to be processed. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare type definition, though it does not explain what constitutes a valid fact ID or any constraints on the list.

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 action ('Run the Lyapunov critic'), the specific resource (list of fact IDs), and the output (stability score, status, per-dimension breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reasoning_query or reasoning_explore, which serve different purposes.

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 alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate to invoke it, any prerequisites, or which sibling tools to prefer in other scenarios. The purpose is implied but not explicitly framed against other reasoning tools.

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