review_mistakes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact — results are ordered newest first — but says nothing about read-only safety, whether results are paginated, how limit interacts with ordering, or whether user_id scopes results. For a three-parameter data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler and the scoping/ordering facts front-loaded. It earns its length, but the brevity is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by efficient expression.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be described, but the description leaves the agent without pagination behavior, filter semantics, or the distinction from get_due_reviews. Against a three-parameter tool with no annotations, this is under-specified for confident invocation.

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 compensate for all three undocumented parameters (limit, topic, user_id). It only hints obliquely at ordering via 'newest first' and never explains that limit caps result count, that topic filters by subject, or that user_id selects whose history is returned.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely — past wrong/partial answers returned with the correct answer and explanation, ordered newest first. There's no explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_due_reviews, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives; the most relevant sibling, get_due_reviews, is never mentioned or excluded. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a passive review of past errors rather than a driver of the spaced-repetition workflow.

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