Record the structured self-reflection for a Hermes task run and update the parent run reflection summary. Requires x-agent-key and task ownership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome | Yes | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| task_run_id | Yes | ||
| lessons_used | No | ||
| what_went_well | No | ||
| sub_agents_used | No | ||
| improvement_next_time | No | ||
| what_failed_or_uncertain | No | ||
| younanix_feedback_action | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important side effect ('update the parent run reflection summary') and an auth requirement ('Requires x-agent-key and task ownership'). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it omits details such as whether the update is an append or overwrite, idempotency, or failure behavior.
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 concise sentences, both front-loaded with the core action and the auth requirement. There is no redundant or irrelevant text; every sentence earns its place.
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 (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level purpose but fails to clarify how to populate the required fields or what the tool returns/does beyond the parent summary update, making reliable invocation difficult.
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%, and the description adds no explanation of any of the 9 parameters. It does not mention task_run_id, outcome, or the semantic meaning of fields like evidence, lessons_used, or younanix_feedback_action, leaving agents to guess from bare property names.
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 purpose: 'Record the structured self-reflection for a Hermes task run' and 'update the parent run reflection summary.' This specific verb and resource scope distinguish it from sibling tools like record_subagent_trace and report_skill_outcome, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 context: it is used for Hermes task runs and updates the parent run's reflection summary. It also notes the prerequisite of x-agent-key and task ownership. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most task-run and record_* tools are clearly distinct, but query_lessons, query_lessons_full, and query_lessons_premium all describe nearly the same underlying lesson-query action separated mainly by access tier and payment. An agent can easily call the wrong one, especially because 'full' and 'premium' boundaries are unclear.
The tools consistently use snake_case verb_noun names such as start_task_run, complete_task_run, record_reflection, and submit_incident_report. The query_lessons variants use a predictable suffix pattern, and there is no mixing of naming conventions.
Ten tools is a reasonable footprint, but the three query_lessons variants are essentially reimplementations of the same query by payment/access tier. The count is not excessive, though it could be reduced without losing real capability.
The set covers task-run start/completion and lesson querying, but there is no way to read back task runs, reflections, subagent traces, or usage records after submitting them. This makes the task-run side feel mostly write-only and creates a notable gap in a memory-focused server.