soul_reflect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states that the tool triggers a reflection cycle and describes the tiers, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, state modifications, or what happens to existing data.

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-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds value for a tier without extraneous words.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks context about what a 'reflection cycle' entails, what frameworks or signals are, and does not mention output, which is adequate but incomplete for a deep understanding.

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% with a clear enum description. The tool description repeats the same information in a narrative form, adding no new semantic 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 the tool triggers a reflection cycle and explains three distinct tiers (quick, deep, meta), making it specific and differentiated from sibling tools like soul_read or soul_self_evaluate.

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 implies usage through tier explanations (fast vs thorough vs audit) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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