ck_review_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds context about the polling pattern and the return of status, notes, and URL, which goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and behavioral context without redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action (fetch status) and then details. Could be slightly more streamlined, but it is effective.

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 the output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the key return fields (status, notes, URL) and usage pattern (polling). For a relatively simple read-only tool, this is complete enough. It could mention error handling or not-found cases, but it is sufficient.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the interaction between review_id, task_id, and review_type, particularly that review_type filters when task_id is used without review_id. This clarifies parameter usage beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches the latest decision status, reviewer notes, and browser review URL, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ck_review_submit and ck_review_feedback. It specifies the resource and verb effectively.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: with review_id or task_id, and explains that review_type filters when task_id is used. It also advises polling after ck_review_submit to check approval before proceeding. While it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, the context is clear.

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