reflect_and_write

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

Discloses that agents cannot force memory creation and the system decides retention, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, and there are no annotations to supplement these 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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage guidance.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks detail on parameter meanings, return values, and failure modes, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without prior knowledge.

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?

The description does not explain any of the six parameters; schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, which are self-explanatory but lack detail.

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 verb 'report' and the resource 'post-task reflection pipeline', and contrasts with sibling tools that inspect or retrieve knowledge, making it easy to differentiate.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use the tool ('Do not call for trivial, failed, reverted, or unverified work'), but does not mention alternatives for when to use sibling tools.

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