reef_inspect

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. Description adds that the tool returns 'durable facts, findings, and relevant diagnostic runs', providing concrete behavioral context about the output. 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence defines the action and output, second provides usage guidance. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Description covers the tool's role and usage context well. Output schema exists so return format is not required. However, the description does not clarify the roles of the 5 parameters (e.g., projectId vs projectRef), leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter meaning, usage, or relationships. Given the lack of schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'explain' and the resource 'one file or subject fingerprint', and specifies the output: 'durable facts, findings, and relevant diagnostic runs'. It also distinguishes from sibling tool reef_scout by advising use after reef_scout.

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?

Explicitly provides context for usage: 'Use after reef_scout when the model needs the evidence trail and freshness details before editing.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies an alternative, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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