shadowgraph_review_signals

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: acknowledged signals are 'retained rather than deleted', and the tool returns a 'bare JSON array, not paginated'. These details affect how the agent interprets results and avoids assuming pagination or destructive cleanup.

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 front-loads the core action and filters, then uses parenthetical-style sibling differentiation and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds distinct value: listing, alternative routing, safety, retention semantics, and return shape. There is no redundant filler.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it lists, how to filter, how it differs from related tools, safety, retention behavior, and the exact return shape. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit 'bare JSON array, not paginated' statement.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of narrowing 'to a project or to open or acknowledged ones' paraphrases the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'review signals', then immediately clarifies the optional filters (project, open/acknowledged). It distinguishes itself from the closely named shadowgraph_review and shadowgraph_ack_review by describing what those tools do differently, so an agent can confidently identify which tool fits.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with shadowgraph_review ('re-evaluates reopen rules and can create signals') and shadowgraph_ack_review ('closes one'), making the alternative selection criteria clear. It also states 'Reads only', which tells the agent this is the safe inspection tool among the review-related siblings.

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