Reflect: List Segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the notion of 'available' segments and the reusable-segment definition, but does not disclose much beyond the annotations, such as output format or edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema, but it is clearly formatted and does not add unnecessary length.

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 list operation with one required parameter and two optional pagination parameters, the description is sufficient. It explains the resource type, the key platform filter, and pagination controls, though it does not specify the return shape since no output schema is provided.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats the parameter names and descriptions but adds no new semantic detail beyond defining what segments are, which is the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Retrieve available reusable test segments for the given platform type' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly states what the tool does. It also defines what segments are, distinguishing this from sibling list tools like reflect_list_tests and reflect_list_suites.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving reusable test segments filtered by platform type, and explains the segment concept well enough for an agent to infer when it is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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