reflexive_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the internal scoring formula (tag_overlap*2 + recency_boost + project_match_bonus), parameter-specific details (project adds +0.5, recent_tools reserved for future affinity, limit_per_bucket caps items), and contextualizes the result set as buckets. This goes well beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose and outputs, second provides scoring insight and usage guidance. No filler words; information is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 explains what the tool returns (threads, handoffs, mistakes, insights) and how scoring works, but does not describe the output structure or format of individual items. Given the absence of an output schema, a brief mention of the response shape would make it fully complete. Still, it covers the core behavioral aspects well.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant extra meaning: explains how domain_tags, project, recent_tools, and limit_per_bucket affect scoring and behavior (e.g., future affinity weighting for recent_tools). This elevates understanding beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 surfaces open threads, handoffs, mistakes, and insights for the current context, using a specific verb ('Surface') and listing the exact resources. It distinguishes from siblings by advising to call this instead of querying individual buckets when bootstrapping or switching domains.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when bootstrapping a session or switching domains' and contrasts it with querying individual buckets, implying alternatives like get_open_threads or check_mistakes. This provides clear usage context without ambiguity.

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