get_review_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying that this returns the latest snapshot and enumerating its key fields, giving a clearer behavioral picture beyond the annotations.

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 sentence that immediately names the action, the object, and the key contents. Every word earns its place, and no irrelevant detail is included.

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 parameterless read-only tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The description conveys the scope of the returned snapshot; a minor gap is that it does not mention what happens if no snapshot exists yet, but that is not essential for basic 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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and a clearly defined resource ('latest review-state snapshot'), while naming the exact contents: daemon phase, word count, and accept rate. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_status or get_progress, which focus on different state.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_status, get_progress, or get_activity. The description implies it is for reading review state, but it does not clarify conditions or exclusions that would help an agent choose among the many get_* siblings.

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