get_due_subtopics

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful trait that results are sorted by overdue-ness, but it does not disclose scope behavior when study_id is omitted or what fields the queue items contain. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and ordering behavior, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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?

For a read-only tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and ordering. The main omission is behavior when study_id is null (all studies vs. a default scope) and the absence of an output schema, but the low complexity and strong schema/annotation coverage make this a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains limit and study_id, including the warning that study_id is not a user id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the fact that the returned queue is ordered by overdue-ness.

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 states a clear action and resource: returning the spaced-repetition queue ordered by overdue-ness. It is understandable, though it relies on the tool name and the phrase 'spaced-repetition queue' to convey that it returns due subtopics, and it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_subtopics.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving the review queue, so an agent can infer when to call it, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The sibling tools are visible in context, yet the description does not route the agent to list_subtopics or get_subtopic_history when a different view is needed.

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