Metis — Aggregate Reflexions Tool

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly states it reads 'reflexion_log' entries (non-destructive) and returns aggregated themes. It does not contradict any annotations. Slight lack of mention of potential side effects, but none expected.

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 relatively concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly tighter but is clearly structured.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers the input parameters, data source, time window, and output categories sufficiently. It does not need to detail return values.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'days' is time window (default 14 days), 'agent_slug' scopes to one agent or all. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Theme') and resource ('recent reflexions per agent') with clear scope (Phase 9b). It distinguishes from siblings like 'consolidate_reflexions' by focusing on aggregation and thematic grouping.

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 when to use (to get top themes from recent reflexion logs) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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