memory_reflect

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (only openWorldHint). It discloses the selection criteria (high importance × recent), the linking mechanism ('derived_from'), and the provenance marking, which are critical for understanding the tool's operation. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key concept and efficiently covers both modes. It is concise with no fluff, though the dense structure could be slightly improved for readability.

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 the 7 parameters (0 required), full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for the core functionality. It covers the selection algorithm, storage mechanics, and linking. It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but for this complexity level, it is sufficiently 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enhances understanding by explaining the role of each mode and how parameters like 'mode', 'insight', and 'source_ids' interact. It clarifies the 'gather' output (material + instruction) and 'store' behavior (persist with provenance). This adds value beyond the basic 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 clearly defines the tool as a 'Generative-Agents-style reflection' with two distinct modes ('gather' and 'store'). It specifies the resource (memories) and action (reflection), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_condense or memory_insights by emphasizing its agent-driven, no-LLM-in-server approach.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'gather' for retrieving reflection-worthy material and 'store' for persisting synthesized insights. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, the context is clear and the dual-mode design provides direct usage guidance.

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