sage_reflect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the store action and domain handling, but it repeats schema details (domain omitting behavior) rather than adding new behavioral context such as overwrite/append semantics, permissions, or return values. The research claim about Paper 4 does not aid transparency.

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 contains a substantial motivational paragraph about Paper 4 and Spearman rho that is not actionable for tool selection or invocation. The first two sentences are useful, but the 'feedback loop is critical' portion and the statistical evidence do not earn their place, making the description padded and less 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential timing (after significant tasks) and the key domain behavior. However, it omits any mention of return values, potential side effects, or how this reflection integrates with other memory tools, leaving some context gaps. The irrelevant research paragraph also detracts from completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only rephrases the dos/donts concept already present in the schema, adding no extra meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or examples. It does not enhance the agent's understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 with a specific verb ('store') and resource ('dos' and 'donts' as a reflection). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as 'End-of-task reflection' and indicating it captures both successes and failures, which is unique among the sage_* tools.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this after completing a significant task.' It also explains domain behavior with 'When domain is omitted...' and 'an explicit domain is never remapped.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly compare it to alternative memory tools like sage_remember, so it falls short of a 5.

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