List Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not mention pagination behavior, return size limits, the default 'open' status filter, or any other significant behavior, leaving nearly all behavioral detail to the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, immediately stating the verb and resource. It is appropriately brief for a simple list tool, though its brevity leaves usage and behavioral guidance unaddressed, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 output schema and fully documented input schema cover the calling contract effectively. What is missing is usage guidance among a large sibling set, behavioral expectations, and clarification of the 'REVIEW files' concept, making the description minimally complete but not self-sufficient for agents.

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 coverage is 100%, with defaults and allowed values already documented for all six parameters. The description adds only a generic 'optionally filtered' summary, which does not explain any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List REVIEW files') and a specific capability ('optionally filtered') that maps to the six optional filter parameters. It is not a tautology of the title, though it does not explain what a REVIEW file is or explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_reports and list_tasks.

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 offered about when to use this tool rather than read_review, list_reports, or list_tasks. The phrase 'optionally filtered' hints at filter-driven use cases but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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