Read the review log for a project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does so well by disclosing that reading the log never consumes a retry. It also explains what each entry contains, helping the agent understand the tool's output. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only log.

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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, content, and a key behavioral guarantee. It is front-loaded with the use case and contains no filler.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only tool with optional filters: it explains the purpose, the entry fields, and the retry-budget side effect. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the important return fields, so an agent can infer the shape.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already meaningfully described, so the bar is lowered. The description adds general context about entries but does not add significant per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool returns recent reviews and verdicts for a project, with a specific diagnostic purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings configure_project and submit_for_review, which are write-oriented configuration actions.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: to understand why an agent looped or what was still failing at the end. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the diagnostic use case is clear.

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