review_reads

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: the tool is effectively disabled unless FIREWEED_MCP_READ_AUDIT=1, and query text is only recorded if FIREWEED_MCP_READ_AUDIT_TEXT=1 is also set. It also clarifies that queries may appear as salted fingerprints. This is useful context beyond the minimal schema. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it covers the audit-gating behavior but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation or what the output looks like.

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 description is compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence provides essential configuration caveats without excess. It earns a 4 because it is appropriately sized, though the phrasing could be slightly more direct.

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?

Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main feature and the critical audit-gating behavior. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (list structure, fields, format), nor does it explain how to interpret salted fingerprints, which an agent likely needs to use the output correctly.

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 single parameter 'limit' is already documented as 'how many recent reads to show'. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter, but the schema fully covers it, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 says the tool shows what has been asked and answered, so it is a read-audit/review tool. However, it does not name the operation explicitly with a direct verb+resource structure like 'List read queries', relying on indirect phrasing, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as review_quarantine or trace_evidence.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The description focuses on configuration prerequisites (FIREWEED_MCP_READ_AUDIT) rather than agent decision-making about choosing this tool over siblings.

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