List Reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('owned', 'history') that clarifies the data returned, but it does not go beyond this to disclose additional behavioral details like pagination or ordering.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no parameters, and annotations are strong. The description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Without an output schema, the agent might be uncertain about the return format, but the description is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none; the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate due to no additional information being needed.

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 'List owned review session history' clearly states the action (List) and the resource (owned review session history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_review_types and other list_* tools by specifying 'review session history' rather than generic reviews or other object types.

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 its use case—when the user wants to see their review session history—but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention related tools like list_review_types or get_review. No exclusions or 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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