reflect

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: deterministic, no LLM calls, no auto-writes, and side-effect-free when dry_run is true. It sets clear expectations about what the tool does and doesn't do.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides context on orchestration and determinism without wasted words.

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 tool has three parameters fully documented in the schema, an output schema exists, and the description covers purpose and behavior, the context is quite complete. Slight lack of explicit usage scenarios prevents a perfect score.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions for the three parameters.

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 returns a Markdown draft of new AGENTS.md conventions from recent lessons, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_convention (which applies) and get_conventions (which retrieves existing).

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 indicates that the orchestrator curates lines by calling set_convention(), implying this tool is for generating a draft to be curated, not for direct modification. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or a full alternatives list.

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