get_reflection_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation (fetching a prompt) and does not mention side effects or state changes. It does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it address prerequisites or rate limits. The description is adequate for a simple read operation but lacks depth beyond the immediate action.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second provides the follow-up workflow. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage: what it does (get a prompt) and what to do next (use reflect_and_save). It does not describe the return format, but the noun '提示词' (prompt) implies the output. It also implicitly signals that no side effects occur. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete, though a mention of the return nature could push it to 5.

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% because the only parameter, obs_id, has a description in the schema ('观察记录 ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional context about the parameter format or constraints that would elevate the score.

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 action: '获取某条观察记录的反思分析提示词' (get the reflection analysis prompt for a specific observation record). It specifies the resource (observation record) and the operation (get prompt), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single record with a follow-up action (reflect_and_save). The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 provides a usage flow: '分析完成后用 reflect_and_save 保存结果' (after analysis, use reflect_and_save to save the result). This gives clear context on when to use this tool (to fetch a prompt for a single observation) and what to do after. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like batch_get_reflection_prompts, the single-record focus is implied by '某条', and the workflow guidance is present.

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