adding detailed docs
This commit is contained in:
Patryk Ciechanski
476
docs/api/tools/thinkdeep.md
Normal file
476
docs/api/tools/thinkdeep.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,476 @@
|
||||
# ThinkDeep Tool API Reference
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
The **ThinkDeep Tool** provides access to Gemini's maximum analytical capabilities for complex architecture decisions, system design, and strategic planning. It's designed for comprehensive analysis that requires deep computational thinking and extensive reasoning.
|
||||
|
||||
## Tool Schema
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"description": "Complex architecture, system design, strategic planning",
|
||||
"inputSchema": {
|
||||
"type": "object",
|
||||
"properties": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": {
|
||||
"type": "string",
|
||||
"description": "Your current thinking/analysis to extend and validate"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"problem_context": {
|
||||
"type": "string",
|
||||
"description": "Additional context about the problem or goal",
|
||||
"optional": true
|
||||
},
|
||||
"focus_areas": {
|
||||
"type": "array",
|
||||
"items": {"type": "string"},
|
||||
"description": "Specific aspects to focus on (architecture, performance, security, etc.)",
|
||||
"optional": true
|
||||
},
|
||||
"files": {
|
||||
"type": "array",
|
||||
"items": {"type": "string"},
|
||||
"description": "Optional file paths or directories for additional context",
|
||||
"optional": true
|
||||
},
|
||||
"thinking_mode": {
|
||||
"type": "string",
|
||||
"enum": ["minimal", "low", "medium", "high", "max"],
|
||||
"default": "high",
|
||||
"description": "Thinking depth for analysis"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"temperature": {
|
||||
"type": "number",
|
||||
"minimum": 0,
|
||||
"maximum": 1,
|
||||
"default": 0.7,
|
||||
"description": "Temperature for creative thinking"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"continuation_id": {
|
||||
"type": "string",
|
||||
"description": "Thread continuation ID for multi-turn conversations",
|
||||
"optional": true
|
||||
}
|
||||
},
|
||||
"required": ["current_analysis"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Usage Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Architecture Decision Making
|
||||
|
||||
**Ideal For**:
|
||||
- Evaluating architectural alternatives
|
||||
- Designing system components
|
||||
- Planning scalability strategies
|
||||
- Technology selection decisions
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "We have an MCP server that needs to handle 100+ concurrent Claude sessions. Currently using single-threaded processing with Redis for conversation memory.",
|
||||
"problem_context": "Growing user base requires better performance and reliability. Budget allows for infrastructure changes.",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["scalability", "performance", "reliability", "cost"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "max"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. System Design Exploration
|
||||
|
||||
**Ideal For**:
|
||||
- Complex system architecture
|
||||
- Integration pattern analysis
|
||||
- Security architecture design
|
||||
- Performance optimization strategies
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Need to design a secure file processing pipeline that handles user uploads, virus scanning, content analysis, and storage with audit trails.",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["security", "performance", "compliance", "monitoring"],
|
||||
"files": ["/workspace/security/", "/workspace/processing/"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Strategic Technical Planning
|
||||
|
||||
**Ideal For**:
|
||||
- Long-term technical roadmaps
|
||||
- Migration strategies
|
||||
- Technology modernization
|
||||
- Risk assessment and mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Legacy monolithic application needs migration to microservices. 500K+ LOC, 50+ developers, critical business system with 99.9% uptime requirement.",
|
||||
"problem_context": "Must maintain business continuity while modernizing. Team has limited microservices experience.",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["migration_strategy", "risk_mitigation", "team_training", "timeline"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "max",
|
||||
"temperature": 0.3
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Problem Solving & Innovation
|
||||
|
||||
**Ideal For**:
|
||||
- Novel technical challenges
|
||||
- Creative solution development
|
||||
- Cross-domain problem analysis
|
||||
- Innovation opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "AI model serving platform needs to optimize GPU utilization across heterogeneous hardware while minimizing latency and maximizing throughput.",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["resource_optimization", "scheduling", "performance", "cost_efficiency"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "max",
|
||||
"temperature": 0.8
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Parameter Details
|
||||
|
||||
### current_analysis (required)
|
||||
- **Type**: string
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Starting point for deep analysis and extension
|
||||
- **Best Practices**:
|
||||
- Provide comprehensive background and context
|
||||
- Include current understanding and assumptions
|
||||
- Mention constraints and requirements
|
||||
- Reference specific challenges or decision points
|
||||
|
||||
**Example Structure**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Current Analysis:
|
||||
- Problem: [Clear problem statement]
|
||||
- Context: [Business/technical context]
|
||||
- Current State: [What exists now]
|
||||
- Requirements: [What needs to be achieved]
|
||||
- Constraints: [Technical, business, resource limitations]
|
||||
- Open Questions: [Specific areas needing analysis]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### problem_context (optional)
|
||||
- **Type**: string
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Additional contextual information
|
||||
- **Usage**:
|
||||
- Business requirements and priorities
|
||||
- Technical constraints and dependencies
|
||||
- Team capabilities and limitations
|
||||
- Timeline and budget considerations
|
||||
|
||||
### focus_areas (optional)
|
||||
- **Type**: array of strings
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Directs analysis toward specific aspects
|
||||
- **Common Values**:
|
||||
- **Technical**: `architecture`, `performance`, `scalability`, `security`
|
||||
- **Operational**: `reliability`, `monitoring`, `deployment`, `maintenance`
|
||||
- **Business**: `cost`, `timeline`, `risk`, `compliance`
|
||||
- **Team**: `skills`, `training`, `processes`, `communication`
|
||||
|
||||
### thinking_mode (optional)
|
||||
- **Type**: string enum
|
||||
- **Default**: "high"
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Controls depth and computational budget
|
||||
- **Recommendations by Use Case**:
|
||||
- **high** (16384 tokens): Standard complex analysis
|
||||
- **max** (32768 tokens): Critical decisions, comprehensive research
|
||||
- **medium** (8192 tokens): Moderate complexity, time-sensitive decisions
|
||||
- **low** (2048 tokens): Quick strategic input (unusual for thinkdeep)
|
||||
|
||||
### temperature (optional)
|
||||
- **Type**: number (0.0 - 1.0)
|
||||
- **Default**: 0.7
|
||||
- **Purpose**: Balances analytical rigor with creative exploration
|
||||
- **Guidelines**:
|
||||
- **0.0-0.3**: High accuracy, conservative recommendations (critical systems)
|
||||
- **0.4-0.7**: Balanced analysis with creative alternatives (most use cases)
|
||||
- **0.8-1.0**: High creativity, innovative solutions (research, innovation)
|
||||
|
||||
## Response Format
|
||||
|
||||
### Comprehensive Analysis Structure
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"content": "# Deep Analysis Report\n\n## Executive Summary\n[High-level findings and recommendations]\n\n## Current State Analysis\n[Detailed assessment of existing situation]\n\n## Alternative Approaches\n[Multiple solution paths with trade-offs]\n\n## Recommended Strategy\n[Specific recommendations with rationale]\n\n## Implementation Roadmap\n[Phased approach with milestones]\n\n## Risk Assessment\n[Potential challenges and mitigation strategies]\n\n## Success Metrics\n[Measurable outcomes and KPIs]\n\n## Next Steps\n[Immediate actions and decision points]",
|
||||
"metadata": {
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high",
|
||||
"analysis_depth": "comprehensive",
|
||||
"alternatives_considered": 5,
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["architecture", "performance", "scalability"],
|
||||
"confidence_level": "high",
|
||||
"tokens_used": 15840,
|
||||
"analysis_time": "8.2s"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"continuation_id": "arch-analysis-550e8400",
|
||||
"status": "success"
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Analysis Components
|
||||
|
||||
**Executive Summary**:
|
||||
- Key findings in 2-3 sentences
|
||||
- Primary recommendation
|
||||
- Critical decision points
|
||||
- Success probability assessment
|
||||
|
||||
**Current State Analysis**:
|
||||
- Strengths and weaknesses of existing approach
|
||||
- Technical debt and architectural issues
|
||||
- Performance bottlenecks and limitations
|
||||
- Security and compliance gaps
|
||||
|
||||
**Alternative Approaches**:
|
||||
- 3-5 distinct solution paths
|
||||
- Trade-off analysis for each option
|
||||
- Resource requirements and timelines
|
||||
- Risk profiles and success factors
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended Strategy**:
|
||||
- Detailed recommendation with clear rationale
|
||||
- Step-by-step implementation approach
|
||||
- Resource allocation and timeline
|
||||
- Success criteria and validation methods
|
||||
|
||||
**Risk Assessment**:
|
||||
- Technical risks and mitigation strategies
|
||||
- Business risks and contingency plans
|
||||
- Team and organizational challenges
|
||||
- External dependencies and uncertainties
|
||||
|
||||
## Advanced Usage Patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Multi-Phase Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 1: Problem Exploration**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Initial problem statement and context",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["problem_definition", "requirements_analysis"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 2: Solution Development**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Previous analysis findings + refined problem definition",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["solution_design", "architecture", "implementation"],
|
||||
"continuation_id": "previous-analysis-id",
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "max"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Phase 3: Implementation Planning**
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Chosen solution approach + design details",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["implementation_strategy", "risk_mitigation", "timeline"],
|
||||
"continuation_id": "previous-analysis-id",
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Adversarial Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Primary Analysis**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Proposed solution with detailed rationale",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["solution_validation", "feasibility"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high",
|
||||
"temperature": 0.4
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Devil's Advocate Review**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Previous analysis + instruction to challenge assumptions and find flaws",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["risk_analysis", "failure_modes", "alternative_perspectives"],
|
||||
"continuation_id": "primary-analysis-id",
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high",
|
||||
"temperature": 0.6
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Collaborative Decision Making
|
||||
|
||||
**Technical Analysis**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Technical requirements and constraints",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["technical_feasibility", "architecture", "performance"],
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Business Analysis**:
|
||||
```json
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Technical findings + business context",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["business_value", "cost_benefit", "strategic_alignment"],
|
||||
"continuation_id": "technical-analysis-id",
|
||||
"thinking_mode": "high"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with Other Tools
|
||||
|
||||
### ThinkDeep → CodeReview Flow
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
// 1. Strategic analysis
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "Need to refactor authentication system for better security",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["security", "architecture"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 2. Detailed code review based on strategic insights
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "codereview",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"files": ["/workspace/auth/"],
|
||||
"context": "Strategic analysis identified need for security-focused refactoring",
|
||||
"review_type": "security",
|
||||
"continuation_id": "strategic-analysis-id"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ThinkDeep → Analyze Flow
|
||||
|
||||
```json
|
||||
// 1. High-level strategy
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "thinkdeep",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"current_analysis": "System performance issues under high load",
|
||||
"focus_areas": ["performance", "scalability"]
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// 2. Detailed codebase analysis
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "analyze",
|
||||
"arguments": {
|
||||
"files": ["/workspace/"],
|
||||
"question": "Identify performance bottlenecks based on strategic analysis",
|
||||
"analysis_type": "performance",
|
||||
"continuation_id": "strategy-analysis-id"
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Performance Characteristics
|
||||
|
||||
### Response Times by Thinking Mode
|
||||
- **medium**: 4-8 seconds (unusual for thinkdeep)
|
||||
- **high**: 8-15 seconds (recommended default)
|
||||
- **max**: 15-30 seconds (comprehensive analysis)
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Indicators
|
||||
- **Depth**: Number of alternatives considered
|
||||
- **Breadth**: Range of focus areas covered
|
||||
- **Precision**: Specificity of recommendations
|
||||
- **Actionability**: Clarity of next steps
|
||||
|
||||
### Resource Usage
|
||||
- **Memory**: 200-500MB per analysis session
|
||||
- **Network**: High (extensive Gemini API usage)
|
||||
- **Storage**: Redis conversation persistence (48h TTL for complex analyses)
|
||||
- **CPU**: Low (primarily network I/O bound)
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
### Effective Analysis Prompts
|
||||
|
||||
**Provide Rich Context**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Current Analysis:
|
||||
We're designing a real-time collaborative editing system like Google Docs.
|
||||
Key requirements:
|
||||
- Support 1000+ concurrent users per document
|
||||
- Sub-100ms latency for edits
|
||||
- Conflict resolution for simultaneous edits
|
||||
- Offline support with sync
|
||||
|
||||
Current challenges:
|
||||
- Operational Transform vs CRDT decision
|
||||
- Server architecture (centralized vs distributed)
|
||||
- Client-side performance with large documents
|
||||
- Database design for version history
|
||||
|
||||
Constraints:
|
||||
- Team of 8 developers (2 senior, 6 mid-level)
|
||||
- 6-month timeline
|
||||
- Cloud-first deployment (AWS/Azure)
|
||||
- Must integrate with existing authentication system
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Focus on Decisions**:
|
||||
- Frame analysis around specific decisions that need to be made
|
||||
- Include decision criteria and trade-offs
|
||||
- Mention stakeholders and their priorities
|
||||
- Reference timeline and resource constraints
|
||||
|
||||
### Conversation Management
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Use Continuation for Related Analyses**: Build complex understanding over multiple calls
|
||||
2. **Reference Previous Insights**: Explicitly connect new analysis to previous findings
|
||||
3. **Validate Assumptions**: Use follow-up calls to challenge and refine thinking
|
||||
4. **Document Decisions**: Capture key insights for future reference
|
||||
|
||||
### Quality Optimization
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Match Thinking Mode to Complexity**: Use 'max' only for truly complex decisions
|
||||
2. **Balance Temperature**: Lower for critical systems, higher for innovation
|
||||
3. **Iterative Refinement**: Multiple focused analyses often better than single broad one
|
||||
4. **Cross-Validation**: Use adversarial analysis for critical decisions
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The ThinkDeep Tool serves as your strategic thinking partner, providing comprehensive analysis and creative problem-solving capabilities for the most challenging technical and architectural decisions.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user