review_automation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that: no indication of what status data is returned, whether it is scoped to a session, or any latency/auth behavior. With annotations doing the work, this only clears the minimum.

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 text is short but because it is under-specified rather than economical; it is a single fragment with no front-loaded verb, scope, or parameters. Brevity here reflects missing content rather than tight writing.

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 tool with nested object parameters, a required session_id, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin: it leaves the return shape, the meaning of basis/intent, and the distinction from a dozen review-related siblings entirely unexplained.

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 0% and there are two parameters with nested objects (basis, intent, session_id) plus an idempotency_key. The description explains none of them, leaving the nested 'basis' and 'intent' objects entirely undocumented in both schema and text.

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?

"review automation status" merely restates the tool name and adds no verb-plus-resource specificity: it does not say what a review returns, what 'automation' covers, or how it relates to siblings like review_context or reviews. An agent cannot distinguish it from those siblings from the description alone.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions any of the many sibling tools (review_context, related_review_context, reviews, state) that could be alternatives. Nothing tells the agent which conditions select this tool.

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