get_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what review items are and that alert severity is higher priority than detection, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose default time boundaries, pagination, sorting behavior, or explicitly state read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get review items from the Frigate review queue'), followed by concise domain context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or padding.

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?

The description covers basic purpose and domain context, and the output schema handles return values. However, given the many review-related sibling tools and 8 optional parameters, it does not provide guidance on when to use this listing tool over others or mention its filtering capabilities beyond severity. The agent must rely on the schema for full usage details.

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?

All 8 parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches the severity parameter by defining alert vs detection priority, which is meaningful information not present in the schema. This addition justifies a score above baseline.

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 review items from the Frigate review queue, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('review items'). It adds useful domain context about what review items are and severity priority. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_review_by_id or get_reviews_by_ids, though 'from the Frigate review queue' implies a general listing.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions severity priority but does not advise on choosing get_review over get_review_by_id, get_review_summary, or other review-related tools. No context is given for filtering or common use cases.

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