list_review_queue_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'See' implies read-only access, the description adds no context about return format, pagination behavior, ordering (e.g., chronological vs priority), or concurrency rules (e.g., whether claimed items remain visible). The existence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but behavioral quirks remain undocumented.

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 consists of two efficient, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting the limit parameter entirely, making it incomplete rather than appropriately concise.

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?

Given this is a simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema defined elsewhere, the description covers the core functionality. However, the complete absence of the limit parameter from the description (when the schema lacks descriptions) leaves a significant documentation gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both parameters. It successfully adds semantics for 'domain' ('Optionally filter by domain'), but completely omits the 'limit' parameter (default 20), leaving its purpose and valid ranges undocumented.

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 identifies the resource (scrolls) and their state (awaiting peer review) clearly, distinguishing from siblings like review_scroll_tool (which performs the review) or claim_review_tool. However, it uses the vague verb 'See' rather than 'List' or 'Retrieve', and does not clarify how this differs from browse_domain_tool or search_scrolls_tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_scrolls_tool or browse_domain_tool, nor does it mention prerequisites such as scholar registration or permissions required to view the queue.

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