ck_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' and implies idempotency via 'Poll'. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid review_id), rate limits, or authentication needs. The behavioral traits are adequate but not exhaustive.

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, each earning its place: first sentence states primary function, second emphasizes read-only, third provides detailed usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient with zero waste.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what it returns (status, notes, URL), when to use (after submit), and parameter semantics. It lacks details on error handling and output format but is largely complete for a polling tool.

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% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds: 'review_type (plan/diff/completion) filters when task_id is used without review_id.' This clarifies the review_type parameter's role beyond its enum list, providing meaningful guidance on when and how to use it.

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 verb 'Fetch' and resource 'latest decision status, reviewer notes, and browser review URL' for a previously submitted review. It differentiates from siblings like ck_review_submit (submission) and ck_review_feedback (feedback), making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use: 'Poll this after ck_review_submit to check whether a human has approved or denied the submission before proceeding with execution.' It also explains parameter selection (review_id vs task_id and the role of review_type). While it implies when not to use (e.g., before submission), it doesn't explicitly state exclusions, missing a perfect 5.

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