reflect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It surfaces key behavioral details: returns 'up to 3' verses and attaches principle context to each. However, it doesn't disclose how verses are selected, what happens if no relevant verses exist, or whether the tool has any state/side-effects beyond retrieval.

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 with no filler: the first names the action and outcome, the second adds the cap ('up to 3') and the principle-context detail. Essential information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and output shape. It's missing only an explicit tie to sibling distinctions (e.g., when 'reflect' vs 'search_verses'), but the ethical-dilemma framing largely compensates.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both 'situation' and 'lang'. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning (it restates 'ethical situation' essentially as in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb ('Describe'), target situation ('ethical situation or dilemma'), and concrete deliverable ('up to 3 relevant verses with context on which principle each relates to'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools by emphasizing ethical reflection and contextual principles rather than generic verse search.

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 implies clear context—use when the agent faces an ethical situation or dilemma—and clarifies the interaction model (agent describes, tool returns verses). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the orientation toward dilemmas gives enough positioning against search_verses and practice_principle.

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