reflect_on_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides a 'structured critique' and 'returns specific improvement suggestions', but lacks details on response format, depth of analysis, computational cost, or any limitations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core function, and the second specifies the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given 3 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return type. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like analysis depth, response structure, or error handling, which would be helpful for a tool performing complex code analysis without structured output documentation.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'analyzing quality, security, performance, and maintainability', which aligns with the 'focus' parameter's enum values, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific verbs ('provides a structured critique', 'analyzing') and resources ('code'), covering quality, security, performance, and maintainability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'lint_code' or 'validate_code' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis and improvement suggestions rather than just validation or formatting.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lint_code', 'validate_code', or 'explain_code'. It mentions analysis areas but doesn't specify contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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