get_due_reviews

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly doesn't. It discloses the 7-day forward window, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about ordering, whether overdue items are included, result size/limits, or whether the call is a pure read — only the 'get' prefix hints at that.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the resource named first and the time horizon second — no filler. It is arguably over-compressed rather than wasteful, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should say more: whether the result is a count or a list of items, how due-now and upcoming are separated, and what user_id controls. It answers only the 'what is this' question, leaving the calling contract thin.

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 single parameter user_id has 0% schema description coverage and a 'default' value that is never explained. The description never mentions user scoping, so an agent gets no guidance on what passing a different user_id changes or whether the default is per-caller or global.

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?

Names a specific resource — the spaced-repetition queue — and defines its scope as items due now plus those due in the next 7 days. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like review_mistakes and get_progress, though the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 is implied (check what's due before calling start_session or get_next_question_brief) but never stated, and no alternative tool is named or excluded. An agent must infer when this is the right call versus review_mistakes or get_progress.

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