reflect_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool is deterministic and lists the three checks (line_in_hunk, existing_code_found, existing_code_in_diff), providing good transparency. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling, which are minor 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core logic (three checks) but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what each check means, the exact return format beyond 'keep or drop', or error conditions. More detail on outcomes would improve completeness.

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 71%, so the description's additional value is limited. It mentions 'positioned comment' and the three checks, but does not explicitly map parameters to those checks. The schema descriptions cover most parameter meanings, so the description adds only context about the checks.

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 'Deterministic validation of a positioned comment' and lists the three specific checks, clearly defining the tool's function and output ('keep or drop'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like position_comment or get_review_targets by focusing on validation rather than creation or retrieval.

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 notes that the tool 'Does not call LLM', implying it is a lightweight alternative, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like position_comment or match_rules. The context of three checks suggests it is for validating a comment after positioning, but no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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