synthesize_now

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 25-60s wall time, that it writes to ~/.sovereign/reflections/, returns inline, and reads recent chronicle entries. It also mentions the default model and focus steering. There is no discussion of permissions or side effects beyond writing, but the description is adequately transparent for a local-LLM call.

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 approximately five sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds unique value: trigger, what it does, when to use, parameter guidance, and timing caution. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage, timing, parameter behavior, and output location. It differentiates from the recall_reflections sibling. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but overall it is comprehensive.

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 value by explaining the 'focus' parameter with an example of biasing without constraining, and the 'model' parameter with model suggestions and characterizations. This extra context raises the score above baseline.

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 triggers the synthesis daemon manually, reads chronicle entries, calls the local LLM, writes reflections, and returns them inline. It distinguishes itself from recall_reflections by noting the inline return, and from automatic operation by emphasizing 'manually' and 'on demand'.

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 tool explicitly says to use it 'when something is brewing and you want an outside read in 25-60s' and advises to call it 'deliberately, not casually.' It also notes that it replaces a separate recall_reflections call, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare with other closely related sibling tools like agent_reflect.

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