ae_list_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only enumeration rather than mutation, and the status set adds useful scope. However, it does not disclose return shape, ordering, limits, or whether results are scoped to a specific project.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and status scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description names the operation and the full status range it covers, which is enough to invoke the tool. It stops short of describing the contents of a review item or the response format, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already has 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to compensate for. The description's mention of status categories is sufficient given there is nothing to configure.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('AE MCP review items'), then narrows scope with the statuses 'pending, approved, and rejected'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like ae_create_review and ae_decide_review.

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 states what the tool lists but provides no guidance on when to use it versus related review tools or how to interpret the statuses. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as whether this reflects the current AE project.

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