review_get_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context: coordinates are in the file's own units (mm for printer files), pins are numbered and screenshots should be read, and every submission carries the full set of notes. It doesn't discuss what happens on timeout or whether old feedback is retained across calls.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the field-by-field enumeration of the JSON result largely restates the existing output schema, which is waste. The genuinely valuable parts (units, image-reading instruction, full-set semantics) are buried in that list.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still supplies what the schema can't: unit conventions and the instruction to read the screenshots. Only the blocking/timeout behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description's silence on wait/timeout is acceptable. Notably, the description never mentions blocking behavior or timeout despite that being the tool's main operational choice, so it adds nothing over the schema here.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the notes the user sent from the viewer') and explicitly ties the result to the model shown by review_show_model, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. An agent can tell exactly what comes back without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'for the model shown by review_show_model' establishes the required sequence, and the wait/timeout parameters imply the two modes of use. It never states exclusions or when to prefer a non-blocking call, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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