think

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: it produces a scaffold rather than an answer, and an optional LLM layer appends domain probes. It omits session lifecycle facts (whether the session must later be submitted/verified, whether state persists, or any cost/latency from the LLM layer).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key clarification of what it does not do. Slightly more economy is possible in the final sentence about the LLM layer, but there is little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool sitting at the head of a multi-step workflow (think -> submit -> verify), the description omits the workflow position and leaves all three parameters undocumented, which is thin for a 3-param tool.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description never mentions mode (with its auto/quick/standard/deep enum), context, or what form "problem" should take, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap. Only the concept of a "question" loosely maps to the required problem param.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ("open a thinking session", "get the protocol scaffold") and explicitly states the inverse ("does NOT answer the question"), which separates it from the answering/verifying siblings. It does not, however, name any sibling such as think_submit or think_verify to route the agent explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the five sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the notion of "opening" a session first, leaving the agent to infer that this precedes think_submit/think_verify.

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