list_review_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well by stating that the tool 'returns cards due now' and explaining the default due_only=true behavior. It does not go into greater detail about return structure or side effects, but for a read-only list-style tool it gives solid behavioral transparency.

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 compact and effective: it nails the purpose, default behavior, and the usage workflow in just two sentences. Every sentence carries functional value and the workflow instruction is front-loaded.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete: it specifies the default behavior and the intended interaction pattern. It would be stronger if it explicitly described the shape of the returned cards, especially since there is no output schema, but the description still gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful new parameter semantics beyond restating the due_only default, which is already present in 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 a specific action ('List spaced-repetition review cards') and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable. It also clarifies the default behavior (due-only cards), which distinguishes it from generic list/recent tools among the siblings.

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 clear situational context: 'Use this to conduct an interactive review session' and outlines the exact workflow from listing to answering cards. It identifies the follow-up tool (answer_card) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as for non-due or non-review card listing.

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