brain_get_thought

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indirectly signals non-destructive behavior by framing the call as a pre-change understanding step and adds a specific behavioral note about includeSiblings being off by default due to potentially large result sets. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or error handling, but the key context is present.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core function and then providing usage context. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 there is no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the return fields (note, parents, children, jumps, tags, type, attachments), which covers the essential return shape. It also hints at potential large sibling sets. It lacks error-case details but is otherwise complete for a read 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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a descriptive role, including the helpful 'Take it from brain_list — never guess it' for brainId. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a full thought including note, parents, children, jumps, tags, type, and attachments in a single call. It also positions itself as the primary means to understand a thought's context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like brain_search or brain_traverse.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call it when you need to know what a thought is about and how it connects, before changing or extending it.' This implies a read-before-write pattern but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage differentiation.

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