human_review_request

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: queuing, listing, no resolution, and non-blocking nature. However, it lacks details on error handling or side effects like ignoring notes/decision fields (though schema covers some of these).

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 purpose, no wasted words, efficiently conveys key guidance.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral constraints. Lacks details on return values or what happens after queuing, but given no output schema and 6 parameters, the description is reasonably complete for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on specific parameters beyond implying 'add' vs 'list' actions; it adds marginal value over the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool queues changes for human review or lists pending items, with specific verb-resource and differentiation from siblings like 'cannot resolve human review' and 'never blocks deterministic lanes'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (queue/list for dashboard) and when not to (approval/sludge is dashboard-only, does not block lanes), providing clear context for tool selection.

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