oc_reflect

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

Annotations indicate the tool can write (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive. The description adds that it creates/gets/lists and is passive, which is helpful. But it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or behavior for each action beyond what the schema provides.

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 very concise—only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the verb and resource, and the second adds the important passive qualifier. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

With 13 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, how to use each action (e.g., 'validate' marks success), the structure of reflections, or provide examples. Given the tool's complexity, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema; it only summarizes the actions. No extra semantic meaning is provided.

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 it creates, gets, or lists task-failure reflection artifacts, which distinguishes it from other oc_ tools like oc_journal or oc_checkpoint. However, it could be more specific about the 'structured' nature and how it differs from related 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 notes that reflections are passive recovery guidance only and that OpenChrome never executes nextPlan automatically, providing contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when recording failure analysis rather than automatic recovery.

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