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

The description discloses the tool's returns ('no-charge reflection mode, clarifying question, or safety boundary') and is consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the nature of the outputs and safety boundaries.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return types, followed by exclusions. Every clause is essential and no redundant information is present.

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 has a single parameter fully described in the schema, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description provides sufficient additional context about usage and return values. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides a comprehensive description of the 'need' parameter including its enum values. The tool description adds meaningful context by linking 'difficult_decision' to Clarity and 'recurring_pattern' to MindScan, and by reinforcing the safety option for 'regulated_or_emergency', which adds value 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 this tool is for choosing between Clarity decision mapping and MindScan single-episode reflection. It uses the verb 'choose' and identifies the resource as 'reflection mode', effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tools that handle specific mappings or assessments.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('when someone wants to choose...') and includes a clear exclusion list ('Do not use for diagnosis, emergencies...'). This provides unambiguous guidance on appropriate contexts and alternatives.

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