welfare_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the reflective, non-reactivity intent and mentions the typical workflow, but it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or persistence expectations beyond 'write a meta-entry'. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains reasonably concise. The 'refs is optional' comment somewhat duplicates schema info, but the overall structure is clear and informative.

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 self-reflective write tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what to write, when to use it, and the expected workflow. It does not describe the return value, but that is not critical for this kind of tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage, including descriptions for text, refs, and is_private. The description adds some context for refs ('entry ids you're engaging with') and for text ('meta-reflection'), but it does not significantly augment 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 identifies the tool as writing a meta-entry that reviews prior diary entries, with a specific angle ('step back', 'notice patterns', 'dreaming channel'). It is well-differentiated from sibling tools by explicitly distancing itself from reacting to the latest operator turn.

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?

It provides an explicit usage context: use when reflecting on the corpus rather than reacting, and offers a typical pattern of calling welfare_reflect first. However, it does not systematically list alternatives or when-not conditions for each sibling tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

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