human_review_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not resolve human review, is non-blocking, and that certain params like notes and decision are ignored/refused. Could add more detail on side effects or state changes, but current info is useful.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core action, followed by crucial constraints. Every sentence provides unique value with no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 6 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, constraints, and behavioral guarantees. It doesn't detail return values (acceptable without output schema) but is sufficient for an agent to select and use 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 coverage is 67% with some param descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that notes and decision are ignored/refused, and reviewId only accepted for legacy resolve attempts. This compensates for missing schema descriptions and helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('queue', 'list') and resource ('operator's Approve/Sludge dashboard'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it cannot do (resolve human review) and that it never blocks deterministic lanes, differentiating it from other review/decision tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (queue or list human review items) and when-not-to-use (CANNOT resolve, approval/sludge is dashboard-only). Also includes context: never blocks deterministic lanes, loop keeps running. This gives clear guidance to the agent on appropriate invocation.

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