raven_reflect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that data is read from a local log file ($RAVEN_USAGE_LOG or ~/.raven/usage.jsonl) with no network fetch, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the main action. Minor redundancy in mentioning local log twice, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the summary contents. For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and clear data source, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand usage and boundaries.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter ('days'), with a clear description. The tool description mentions 'over the last N days' but does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: summarizing Raven usage over N days, detailing which tools are called, audit warnings, patterns, design systems, and brand style queries. The verb 'summarize' and specific content list provide clear action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling audit 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 includes explicit triggers: 'Call this when the user asks what have I been building with Raven or what's Raven missing.' This guides invocation. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is narrow enough.

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