reflex_get_definition

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is 'long-running' and it writes files to the output directory as a side effect, then returns the list of written files. This helps set expectations for an agent that might otherwise assume no side effects from a readOnlyHint.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by one short, informative sentence about the side effect and return value. Every phrase is purposeful: the resource, the long-running nature, the file-writing behavior, and the return type are all communicated without redundancy.

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 the simplicity of the tool (three required scalar parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the key operational details: what it retrieves, the side effect, the long-running warning, and what the return value is. It does not elaborate on prerequisites like directory existence or file formats, but for this complexity level the description is sufficiently complete.

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 parameters (workspaceId, reflexId, outputDirectoryPath) are already well-documented. The description only mentions the 'specified output directory' without adding any new semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the definition of a Reflex (Activator) item', and further clarifies the behavior by noting it writes definition files and returns the file list. This clearly distinguishes it from other Reflex tools like reflex_get or reflex_update_definition, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 when to use the tool: whenever the definition files of a Reflex item are needed. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to reflex_get for lightweight metadata retrieval or reflex_update_definition for modifying definitions. Usage context is present but not fully spelled out.

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