think_about_whether_you_are_done

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description doesn't contradict this (it doesn't imply mutation). However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't explain what 'done' means, what the tool evaluates, or any side effects like rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value but doesn't contradict.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Call when you think you're done', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, earning a 5 for efficiency and clarity in brevity.

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 has 0 parameters, annotations (readOnlyHint=true), and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks depth for a 'think' tool—it doesn't explain what 'done' entails or how the output might guide decisions, leaving gaps in contextual understanding. A 3 reflects adequacy but with clear room for improvement.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is given because with no parameters, the description adequately focuses on tool purpose without unnecessary param info.

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 'Call when you think you're done' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'think_about_whether_you_are_done' without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (like 'think_about_collected_information' or 'think_about_task_adherence'), leaving the purpose vague. A 2 is given because it's not missing but fails to provide meaningful clarity beyond the name.

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 minimal guidance with 'Call when you think you're done', which implies usage context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'think_about_collected_information' or other decision-making tools). There's no explicit mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites, so it offers no real differentiation. This scores a 2 for lacking substantive guidance.

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