diana_review_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a non-obvious side effect: approving as a baseline triggers finalization of immutable artifacts, i.e. a read-looking tool that can mutate and create unrecoverable state. It also draws a hard boundary ("cannot approve any object"), which prevents a common misuse. It omits any permission, auth, or result-volume context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the conditional behavior and the negative scope. The opening clause "after the user acts in DianaIE" is a little vague, but nothing is redundant.

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 values need no explanation, and the important behavioral risk (finalizing immutable baseline artifacts) plus the no-id listing mode are both covered. What remains thin is id identification and any prerequisite that must hold before status is meaningful.

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% for the single 'id' property, so the description must compensate: it explains the null case (lists recent reviews, baselines, campaigns) but never says what a valid id looks like, nor which of the three object types it addresses. Partial compensation only.

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 ("Read") with three named resource classes (human review, baseline, parameter study) and clarifies the default list behavior with no id. It implicitly separates itself from diana_review_prepare and diana_parameter_study_prepare by being the status reader, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied ("after the user acts in DianaIE") and the id/no-id condition is spelled out, which tells the agent two distinct invocation modes. However, no alternative tool is named for when this is the wrong call, so the agent must infer the prepare-vs-status split from sibling names alone.

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