review_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. The verbs 'Monitor', 'flag', and 'report' clearly indicate a non-destructive read-only operation, and it lists outputs rather than mutations. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify data', but the behavioral intent is unambiguous.

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 that states the main action ('Monitor adherence') and then lists three specific, valuable outputs. The citation adds context without being excessive. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential return values: overdue flags, adherence ratio, and advice. It does not specify whether it works globally or per-item, nor the format of 'plain advice', but for a monitoring tool of this scope it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist. There is no additional parameter information 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 starts with the specific verb 'Monitor' and clearly identifies the resource ('adherence to the spaced-review schedule'). It enumerates concrete outputs (flag overdue reviews, adherence ratio, plain advice) that distinguish this tool from siblings like 'review_due' or 'stats'.

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 when to use it (when monitoring spaced-review adherence) but does not name any alternative tools or exclusions. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, which would be useful given the large number of sibling tools.

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