get_due_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states that the answer is withheld until grade_item is called, and that overdue items are included. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate and adds notable context.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the answer-withheld detail is placed logically at the end. Every word earns its place; the structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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 list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, filters, and return fields (id, topic, question). The only significant gap is the undefined 'limit' parameter semantics, but overall it provides enough for an agent to call correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains the 'topic' filter explicitly ('optionally filtered to one topic') but does not mention 'limit' at all. The limit parameter has a default but no description, leaving its behavior (e.g., maximum number of items, pagination) undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('items due for review'), and states scope ('today (or overdue)') plus an optional filter ('one topic'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like add_item, grade_item, get_stats, and export_items, which have different purposes.

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 when to use the tool (to see due items) and mentions that answers are withheld until grade_item is called, giving a hint about downstream steps. However, it does not explicitly compare with get_forecast or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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