skills.reviewStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (review_state, review_meta, check status, confidence trend), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it is purely read-only, or any side effects or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the returned-field enumeration is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps in parameter and usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is a real contribution and covers the 'what comes back' question reasonably well. However, the required path argument is unexplained and there is no routing against the review-workflow siblings, leaving the definition only minimally adequate for a tool in a dense review toolset.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required 'path' parameter. It gives no format, relativity (repo-relative vs absolute), or example, so an agent gets no help on how to supply the identifier that the tool requires.

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 ('Show') and resource (review state of a skill), and enumerates the exact fields returned (review_state, review_meta, check status, confidence trend), which is highly descriptive. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the review workflow siblings (reviewRequest/Approve/Reject/Gate), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The read-only intent is only implied by the verb 'Show'; an agent must infer that this is the status-check counterpart to the review mutation siblings and that it needs the same path identifier they use.

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