get_due

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — it doesn't say whether results are capped, ordered, or how "due" is determined, even though openWorldHint=true suggests the result set shifts over time. That variability is exactly what the description should surface.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key notion ("due for review") front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is efficient to the point of under-specification.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it says nothing about the shape, size, or ordering of the returned items. Adequate to pick the tool, not adequate to predict its output.

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, which puts the baseline at 4, but the missing parameters are themselves worth explaining: no limit, no deck/filter scope. The description doesn't note that the call is unfiltered, which would matter for an agent expecting to narrow the set.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get items currently due for review") that an agent can map to a review-queue concept. It doesn't distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_queue, get_srs_overview, or get_weak_items, so the agent has no textual basis for choosing between them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative tool. Given the crowded sibling list of review-related getters, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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