my_effect_reviews

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry this information itself. It does well: it frames the tool as returning a review-record set rather than mutating anything; it states that reviews are ordered newest-first; it names and explains the status values; it says the text has markers stripped; and it notes that innovation_reviews is empty when there is none. It does not state permission or quota requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is a single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and then enumerates the return structure field by field; no sentence is wasted. It is a run-on and slightly heavy, but every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does so thoroughly, covering both timelines, ordering, and the nested fields time, text, refuse_reasons, and links. What is missing is minor: there is no note on how a large history is bounded or how the instance/project context affects the result.

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%, and the schema already explains that effect_id comes from my_effects and that instance_id/project_path are mutually exclusive, with both optional when a single project window is open. The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (the review records of one's own effect) and explains what is returned: the name, current status, bound task, plus two timelines (reviews and innovation_reviews). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling it differs from, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should call this instead of effect_check, works_by_effect, or task_detail.

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?

It says the tool covers 'one's own effect' and mirrors the mobile app's '审核记录' page, which implies when it is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the caller must infer the selection rule.

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