owned_exam_review_inventory

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose one real trait — the tool operates on an already-open preview rather than launching anything — but says nothing about whether it mutates state, what it returns, or what happens if no preview is open.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the precondition comes first. The brevity is not the problem — the opaque vocabulary is, which is penalized elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about return values and side effects, and it supplies neither. For a tool sitting in a dense exam-workflow toolset, 'cache hits' needs a definition to be callable with confidence.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline applies. The phrase 'once per paper' hints at inherent scoping but no parameter exists to control it.

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 sentence names a verb ('identify') and an object ('exact cache hits'), but 'cache hits' is undefined jargon and never connects to what 'owned_exam_review_inventory' actually inventories. An agent reading only this would not know whether the tool counts questions, dedupes seen papers, or records reviewed answers.

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?

'Use already open full preview' states a precondition for calling it, and 'once per paper' implies call frequency. It does not name any alternative among the many sibling exam tools (audit_exam_preview, preview_owned_exam_questions, stage_owned_exam_reviews) or say when not to use it.

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