raven_reflect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description states the exact data source ($RAVEN_USAGE_LOG or ~/.raven/usage.jsonl), confirms no network activity, and explains the report contents, including the interpretation that repeated audit warnings indicate knowledge gaps. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects and information boundaries that annotations alone do not fully provide.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The trigger phrases and the network clarification are placed logically and no filler is present.

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 lightweight read-only tool with one well-schema'd parameter, the description covers purpose, the exact return content themes, data provenance, local-only behavior, and invocation triggers. There is no output schema, but the listed report categories are enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. The safety profile is also confirmed by the readThroughHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 sole parameter `days` is already fully described in the schema with a default of 30 and a range. The description repeats the 'last N days' idea but does not add constraints or semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 names a specific verb ('Summarize how Raven has been used') and a concrete resource (the local usage log), and lists exactly what the report includes: top called tools, repeated audit warnings, looked-up patterns/design systems, and brand-style companies. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling audit and design tools, which focus on individual domains rather than reflecting on Raven usage itself.

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 gives explicit trigger phrasings: 'what have I been building with Raven' or 'what's Raven missing'. It also clarifies this is a local-log operation rather than a network fetch. It does not mention competing alternatives or when not to use this tool, but for this unique reflective tool the call framing is unusually explicit.

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