get_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data (status, progress, findings, telemetry), which adds context beyond the input schema, but does not cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is informative but incomplete for a tool with no 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by a bulleted list of return values. Each sentence and bullet point adds value without redundancy. However, the bulleted list could be slightly more concise, but overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or usage context. For a tool with no output schema, it adequately covers returns but could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'session_id' well-documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current status and progress of a reactive review session.' It uses specific verbs ('Get') and identifies the resource ('reactive review session'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_review_telemetry' or 'view_progress', which might have overlapping functions. This makes it clear but not fully distinct from alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_review_telemetry' or 'view_progress', which could be related, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits its utility for an AI agent in selecting the correct tool.

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