deep_thinking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behaviors: sequential steps, revision, branching, and modeling after the Sequential Thinking pattern. It does not cover the overall call protocol (e.g., how to start/end) but the schema handles those details, and there are no side effects to disclose.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, and uses each sentence to add a specific aspect (definition, process, model). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides a solid conceptual framework that complements the rich schema. It explains the purpose of the sequential and branching features, though it could be slightly more explicit about the operational flow. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to use it.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds strategic context by explaining why parameters like branching and revision are used, mapping 'branching' to branchId/branchFromThought and 'revision' to isRevision/revisesThought, but it doesn't explicitly detail any parameter beyond the schema.

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's function as a structured sequential thinking tool for complex problem-solving, with specific behaviors like breaking down problems, revising thoughts, and exploring alternative reasoning paths. This distinguishes it from the sibling file/system tools, which are all operationally focused.

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?

It explicitly targets 'complex problem-solving' as the use case, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are all system/file operations, so the differentiation is implied.

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