review.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists saved reviews; it does not disclose ordering, filtering, pagination behavior, or the shape of the returned data. This is minimal beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool is under-specified. A list tool would benefit from clarifying whether the list is paginated, sorted, or filtered, and whether the limit parameter controls the number of results returned. The current description leaves these aspects ambiguous.

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 has no description coverage (0%), and the tool description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left to infer its meaning from the parameter name and schema constraints. The description adds no value beyond the schema's built-in metadata.

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 the tool retrieves a list of saved reviews ('저장된 리뷰 목록을 조회합니다'), using a specific verb and resource. It is clear in purpose but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as review.get.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer review.list over review.get or other list tools, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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