Get candidate paths

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, the description adds substantial context: it details the exact content returned (score, success probability, cost/risk, domination status), explains how the followed path is determined (explicit, inferred, or undetermined), lists specific error messages ('No execution recorded yet', 'not enabled'), and states side effects. This goes far beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: main purpose, returns, use-when, not-for, side effects, and errors. Each sentence adds unique value with no redundancy. It is appropriately detailed without being verbose, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and the tool takes no parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage conditions, alternatives, errors, side effects, and return details. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool and interpret its result is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics (trivially). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. It correctly focuses on output and behavior instead.

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 states a specific action ('Show'), a clear resource ('every candidate path OpenReflex considered'), and a scope ('for the most recent task'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming what it is not for and pointing to alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' conditions, naming the exact user intents that should trigger this tool and the sibling tools (explain_decision, get_execution_trace) that should be used instead. This is the gold standard for usage guidance.

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