reef_ask

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

The description expands on the readOnlyHint, explaining it is read-only and uses internal modules. It details default compact evidence mode, options to get full evidence (evidenceMode, includeTrace), and special question handling. This adds value beyond 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 long but front-loads the main purpose. It includes necessary details for a complex tool, but some sentences could be trimmed without losing clarity. Adequate but not maximally concise.

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 complexity and no schema descriptions, the description covers the output format, evidence modes, and question type handling. It does not detail every parameter but provides enough context for effective use, especially with an output schema present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only a few parameters (evidenceMode, includeTrace) and the general question type. Most of the 22 parameters (e.g., projectId, focusFiles, budgetTokens) are not described, leaving incomplete understanding.

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 the 'Primary Reef query engine facade' and lists its output: a compiled codebase and database evidence packet with specific elements. It distinguishes itself by mentioning internal handling of various question types and its read-only nature, matching the annotation.

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 implies this is the main query tool but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'ask', 'reef_verify', or 'reef_where_used'. It lists question types it handles, suggesting when to use it, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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