List claims held for review due to low confidence, so you can inspect unclassified evidence and decide whether to accept or discard them.
List claims the firewall held for review rather than storing. These were NOT written to memory; a QUARANTINE verdict means the claim could not be classified confidently, not that it was rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | most recent N (default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that quarantined claims were not written to memory and explains the meaning of a QUARANTINE verdict, adding valuable semantic context. It omits details like ordering or side effects, but 'List' implies read-only behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences. The first states the core function, and the second clarifies a potential misinterpretation. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what is listed, that it was not stored, and how to interpret the verdict. It does not describe output fields, but that is a minor gap for a tool with this simplicity.
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?
The schema already documents the single parameter 'limit' with its default and meaning (most recent N), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to; the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('claims the firewall held for review') and adds a distinguishing detail: these claims were NOT written to memory. This differentiates the tool from memory-listing siblings like recall and review_reads.
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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to see claims quarantined by the firewall. It also clarifies an important semantic point (quarantine is not rejection). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.