vault_reflect

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavior. It discloses that snapshots are auto-saved to .brain/snapshots/, and describes what each action yields (topics, connections, shifting focus, missing bridges). It doesn't explicitly state whether drift/blindspots have side effects, but the side effect for snapshot is a notable positive.

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 well-structured with an intro and concise action bullets; every sentence adds value without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement and clear action breakdown make it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the three actions and their parameters, and explains the output concept for each (snapshot shows topics/connections, drift shows focus changes, blindspots shows missing connections). It lacks explicit return-value formatting details, but no output schema exists, and the description gives enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema has zero description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the action values (snapshot, drift, blindspots) and linking since_days to drift and limit to blindspots, including defaults. This gives each parameter meaningful context beyond 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 states the tool's purpose—reflecting on the knowledge vault—and distinguishes three specific actions (snapshot, drift, blindspots) that set it apart from sibling tools. The verb 'reflect' and resource 'knowledge vault' are specific, and the action list gives concrete functionality.

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 clear context for when to use each action via probing questions (e.g., 'What does my knowledge look like right now?') and parameter details for drift and blindspots, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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