reef_known_issues

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool avoids broad lint/typecheck commands, which is behavioral context. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description adds some value beyond the 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, though it could be structured with more detail if space allowed.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal (one sentence) and does not cover parameter semantics, return value expectations, or usage constraints. With 8 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete for effective tool use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., projectId, files, severities). With no parameter information, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, which is a critical gap.

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 answers 'have any errors?' from maintained Reef findings and diagnostic readiness state, which is specific. It distinguishes from 'broad lint or typecheck commands' but could better differentiate from sibling tools like 'reef_agent_status' or 'reef_inspect'.

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 querying known issues without launching broad commands, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among the many sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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