get_due_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond a simple 'list' by disclosing that a non-empty result does not block new learning globally and that blocking is a per-node Policy + State Guard decision. This is genuinely useful behavior context, though it does not describe return format or side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The behavioral note is packed with valuable information without padding.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description does not fully equip an agent. It lacks parameter semantics and any explicit differentiation from closely related review-state tools, leaving some context gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no explanation of learner_id, limit, or session_id. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is added beyond what the schema already shows.

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 and resource: 'List due review items.' It clearly identifies what the tool returnscd. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_review_state or get_mastery_status, but the name and first sentence make the core purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use when review items are dueressed, and the second sentence provides contextual guidance about interpreting non-empty results. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_review_state or recalculate_review_schedule, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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