Get categorized review feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds context about returning compact feedback and filtering by topic, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects. The return format is also not disclosed, though the word 'Return' implies a read operation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key filtering behavior. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to be more comprehensive. It covers the basic purpose but omits important parameter details, return value structure, and clear differentiation from many sibling tools. The lack of parameter explanations for 'includeComments' and 'sessionId' leaves gaps in context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains 'topicId' via 'Filter by one comment topic' and partially explains 'statuses' with 'pending or rejected', but it ignores 'sessionId' and 'includeComments'. The statuses explanation is also incomplete because the enum allows four values, not just the two mentioned, potentially misleading agents.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Return compact pending or rejected patch feedback'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does not return the complete manuscript, making it clear this is for focused feedback retrieval rather than full document access.

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 usage context by targeting 'an editing agent' and stating it filters by comment topic, which suggests when to use it. It also indirectly contrasts with getting the full manuscript, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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