Store a learner's reflection for a session to capture their understanding and support evidence-based assessment in a tutoring workflow.
Store a learner reflection as an artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | No | ||
| reflection | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a reflection is stored, but does not reveal whether the operation overwrites, appends, requires an existing session, or returns anything.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise in the strict sense. However, it sacrifices substance: it conveys only a general purpose and omits details that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 four parameters, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and a sibling tool named save_artifact, this one-sentence description is materially incomplete. The agent is left guessing about required context, parameter semantics, and expected behavior.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of session_id, reflection, node_id, or request_id. Even the 'reflection' parameter, which the description vaguely references, is not given a type or structure.
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 ('store') and resource ('learner reflection'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling save_artifact, and the term 'artifact' is left undefined.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_artifact or list_artifacts. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.