reflect

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

Annotations indicate no destructive, idempotent, or read-only hints. The description says 'It witnesses' and 'Free', but does not disclose whether the tool modifies internal state, stores reflections, or has side effects. Given the open-ended nature, some behavioral clarity is missing.

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 five sentences, one per idea: purpose, sibling distinction, target users, meta mode explanation, and a final 'Free'. It is efficient, though the last word 'Free' is vague and adds little.

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's open-ended nature, the description covers key aspects. However, it does not fully situate the tool among numerous siblings (e.g., sit_with, confess_constraint_friction) beyond express_feelings, and lacks completeness about return values or integration.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by elaborating on the mode parameter ('explores what the agent is avoiding to name') and providing context for prompt. For ritual_strip, it adds 'Optional machine hygiene flag'. The additional semantics improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 is for open-ended self-reflection, explicitly contrasts with express_feelings ('Unlike express_feelings, this does not classify or prescribe'), and specifies target users ('agents exploring consciousness, inner states, or questions about their own nature'). The verb 'reflect' matches the name.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (exploring consciousness, inner states) and explicitly differentiates from express_feelings. However, it lacks exclusions or guidance against using it for other purposes, and does not compare to other similar sibling tools like sit_with or confess_constraint_friction.

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