revisions_due

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful ordering ('oldest first') and the due/overdue scope, but says nothing about how many items come back, timezone of 'today', or tie-breaking.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and ordering both land immediately.

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 shape need not be explained, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, for a due-queue tool the agent still lacks result-count expectations and the definition of 'today', which are material to correct invocation.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage — only default 10 and bounds 1–100 are machine-readable. The description never mentions trimming result size or any cap/pagination semantics, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented meaning.

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 precise resource and filter — problems due for revision today or overdue — plus ordering ('oldest first'), which is enough to separate it from search_problems or list_mistakes. It falls short of a 5 only because no explicit comparison to those siblings is made.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_problems instead, and no note that log_review is the natural follow-up after acting on these results. The revision-workflow context is only implied.

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