apply_reasoning_framework

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it's a 'systematic analysis' with a '9-step framework', which provides some behavioral context about the structured approach. However, it doesn't mention what the 9 steps actually are, what the output looks like, or any rate limits/performance characteristics.

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 relatively concise but has some redundancy with the repeated keywords ('추론 프레임워크|체계적 분석|논리적 사고|reasoning framework|systematic analysis|logical thinking'). The core functionality is stated clearly, but the keyword repetition doesn't add meaningful value and could be more streamlined.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, without an output schema and with multiple similar sibling tools, the description could better explain what distinguishes this framework and what kind of output to expect from the analysis.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 applies a 9-step reasoning framework to analyze complex problems systematically. It specifies the verb 'apply' and the resource 'reasoning framework', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'step_by_step_analysis' or 'analyze_problem' that might also perform systematic analysis.

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. With multiple analysis-focused sibling tools (analyze_complexity, analyze_problem, step_by_step_analysis, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 9-step framework is preferred or what distinguishes it from other analysis approaches.

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