reef_instructions

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

Annotations declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it loads specific file types, returns structured items with derived facts, and does not persist facts. It also clarifies the security scope ('reads only inside the project root'). No contradictions.

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 pack the essential purpose, behavior, and constraints. No filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core action and output, meeting conciseness and structure goals.

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?

For a read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the general behavior and security, but lacks parameter details despite having 4 parameters. Given the schema's zero coverage, more parameter explanation would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'files' parameter ('project-relative files') but fails to explain projectId, projectRef, or includeDerivedFacts. This is insufficient for understanding parameter semantics.

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 the tool's purpose: 'load .mako/instructions.md and applicable AGENTS.md files for requested project-relative files, returning structured instruction items plus derived Reef fact shapes.' It specifies the verb (load, return), resource (project instructions), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a read-only tool that does not persist facts.

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 usage for 'scoped project instructions' and 'requested project-relative files', and notes it 'Reads only inside the project root.' This provides context but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative sibling tools, leaving room for ambiguity.

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