reopened

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains scoping behavior, which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs. It also describes what each entry shows, adding useful context beyond the schema.

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 dense sentences deliver the core concept, entry contents, read-only nature, and parameter usage with no wasted words. The most important qualifier, 'POST-write review queue,' is front-loaded.

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 is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema present, and no nested objects. The description covers what the queue is, what entries contain, that it is read-only, and how to scope to one record. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that `key` scopes the queue to one record. It does not describe the format or the default behavior when omitted, but for a single optional string parameter this is adequate.

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 identifies the tool as a POST-write review queue for records reopened by observe() due to conflicting evidence, and specifies the entry contents: still-current value, reason, and prior value. This distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like resolve_reopened and from observation tools like observe.

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 clear usage context: it is a read-only review queue, and passing `key` scopes to one record. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read-only framing and scope instruction are sufficient for basic selection.

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