Get Review Queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only; no side effects,' explains the ranking order, and details what each item type represents (including the 90+ day threshold for stale controls). It omits auth/permission requirements, but coverage is otherwise rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and side-effect status, then elaborates the taxonomy in a structured way. The length is justified by the number of item types that must be distinguished, though the parenthetical definitions are dense and could be trimmed slightly.

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 values need not be explained, yet the description adds essential semantic context by defining each item_type and how to act on it. Nothing needed to call and correctly interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter (server_version) is never mentioned in the description. The parameter is standard plumbing rather than a semantic input, so the gap is minor, but the description does not compensate at all for the undocumented param.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns the workspace's review queue') and immediately scopes it as 'what needs a decision or a re-check, ranked.' The item_type taxonomy (escalation, proposal, unaccepted_assumption, open_assumption, stale_control) further distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_proposals.

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?

Gives clear routing guidance: 'Start here for periodic maintenance,' and maps each row type to its resolution tool (decide_proposal for escalations/proposals, submit_attestation for unaccepted assumptions). It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_proposals or get_controls as when-to-use options, but the entry-point framing is strong.

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