read_review_queue

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: labels are omitted by default, include_labels may leak answers/error hints, status semantics for scheduled/outdated/completed, offset pagination invalidation on plan changes, and the absence of background notifications or interval algorithms.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose, default behavior, the include_labels tradeoff, status semantics, then pagination caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the block is packed and could be marginally tightened.

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-format explanation is unnecessary. Given a 5-param, 0%-coverage schema, the description supplies the semantics, risks, and caveats an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing major 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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load. It explains as_of (must include timezone), include_labels (default false; what it reveals and the risk), status meanings for several enum values, and offset pagination behavior. It does not cover limit or the due/cancelled/all status values, leaving a small gap.

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 (读取) and resource (到期复习队列) with scope (default current time, due queue). It is clearly distinguished from sibling review tools such as read_review_plan, update_review_plan, and review_practice_attempt, which serve different intents.

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 concrete when-to-use context: '整理题库时可显式include_labels=true' and a when-not warning '勿在独立重练前展示'. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative sibling tool, but the operational conditions for the key optional parameter are clearly stated.

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