ocr_review_queue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly conveys that this is a read-only-style listing of queued records, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether listing the queue has any side effects. The output schema covers return shape, but behavior beyond listing is undisclosed.

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, focused sentence delivers the core purpose with no filler. The key distinguishing detail (low-confidence/need_train) is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: an agent can invoke it and understand what it returns. The main missing context is how it relates to the sibling ocr_list_records and ocr_review_record tools, but that is already partially covered by the purpose clarity.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the single 'limit' parameter (0% schema description coverage), and the tool description does not mention or explain it either. The parameter name and default make it somewhat self-evident, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows.

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') and a specific resource ('low-confidence (need_train) records awaiting human confirmation'), making the queue's purpose immediately clear. This also differentiates it from the sibling tools ocr_list_records and ocr_review_record.

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: when you need records awaiting human confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as ocr_list_records for general listing or ocr_review_record for acting on a record.

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