ck_review_status

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

The description declares read-only nature and outlines what information is returned (status, notes, URL). It also hints at polling behavior. However, it does not cover error scenarios, rate limits, or detailed side effects, though for a read-only tool these are minor omissions.

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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, read-only nature, and usage guidance. It is well-structured, front-loaded with critical information, and each sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description explains input parameter interactions and expected output (status, notes, URL). It lacks details on output format or error handling, but for a simple status query, it is largely complete.

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% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds significant value by explaining the relationship between review_id and task_id and how review_type is used as a filter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states it fetches decision status, notes, and URL for a submitted review. It uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'review status', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like ck_review_submit and ck_review_feedback.

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 comprehensive usage guidance: poll after ck_review_submit, use review_id for specific review or task_id for latest, and review_type filters when using task_id alone. It explicitly states the context of checking approval before proceeding.

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