review_procedures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only — never edits your operating instructions,' which is a key safety trait. This goes beyond the schema and adds value. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only review operation, the stated non-mutating behavior is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences covering purpose and safety, plus a single-line argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and parameter semantics well. The absence of usage guidelines (e.g., when to choose this over sibling tools) is a minor gap, but given the tool's simplicity and the output schema's presence, the overall context is adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates with a clear explanation: 'Args: project: Scope to a project (None = whole brain).' This explains the parameter's meaning, the None behavior, and default scope, making the parameter semantics completely clear.

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 starts with a specific action: 'Find recurring-incident clusters and propose always-on rules for review.' This clearly states the tool's function with a distinct verb and resource, and the phrase 'propose' differentiates it from directly applying rules. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the focus on procedures and recurring incidents makes it distinguishable from tools like review_beliefs.

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?

Usage context is implied: you use this when you need to detect recurring incidents and propose review rules. However, no explicit 'when to use vs. when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned. The description provides clear context but no exclusions, so it earns a middle score.

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