get_due_reviews

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool lists (implying read-only), but it does not explain how the as_of parameter affects the 'due' calculation, nor what 'active measures' means in this 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?

The entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the core function.

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?

Despite the low complexity of a single optional parameter, the description leaves critical details unexplained: the meaning of as_of, the definition of 'due', and the return format (no output schema exists). An agent could invoke the tool with the wrong date semantics as a result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a single undocumented as_of parameter, the description was expected to compensate, but it makes no mention of the parameter. The agent receives no information about allowed formats, defaults, or how as_of changes the result.

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 specifies a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('active measures whose next-review date is due'), which is distinct from sibling tools like review_candidate or list_watchlist. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the resource name.

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