turingmind_get_edit_reasoning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that reasoning can be extracted from commit messages or via user prompting (interactive parameter). However, it does not explain what 'capture' means in terms of state changes or side effects, nor does it cover permission requirements or error scenarios. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct point: extraction methods, per-file support, and benefit. No wasted words.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers main behaviors: getting reasoning from commits or prompts, per-file support, historical lookups (commit_hash), and interactive prompting. It does not explain return format or error conditions, but those are somewhat acceptable without an output schema. A small gap is lack of clarity on 'capture' semantics.

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 input schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description reinforces that per-file reasoning is supported and mentions extraction from commit messages and prompting, but it adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 with marginal added value.

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 verb-resource pair: 'Get or capture developer reasoning for file changes.' It specifies the action (get/capture) and target (reasoning for file changes). It also provides distinguishing context with 'Supports per-file reasoning' and 'Helps code review understand intent,' which helps differentiate from sibling tools like turingmind_log_reasoning.

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 implies usage during code review ('Helps code review understand intent') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like turingmind_log_reasoning. It lacks explicit when-not or prerequisite conditions. While some context is provided, it falls short of full guidance.

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