Reflect: List Segments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond 'retrieve' (consistent with annotations) and provides pagination context. It adds some domain context (what segments are) but not additional behavioral disclosure.

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 with a clear first sentence, a brief explanation of segments, and a parameter list. The parameter list is slightly redundant given schema coverage, but overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context: entity definition, required parameter, pagination. However, it lacks details on response format (e.g., fields returned) and error scenarios. For a simple list tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats parameter names and types without adding new meaning or usage details beyond the schema. No additional semantics like allowed values or formatting hints.

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 it retrieves reusable test segments for a given platform type, distinguishing it from sibling list tools (e.g., reflect_list_tests, reflect_list_suites) by specifying 'segments'. It also defines what segments are, providing domain context.

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 use when needing segments for a platform but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., reflect_add_segment for adding, reflect_list_tests for tests). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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