review_due

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

The description adds context for the desirable_difficulty parameter, defining it as 'hard but likely to succeed'. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, pagination, or return format, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose and one key option.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains only one parameter and omits behavior, return format, and usage context, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'desirable_difficulty' parameter but leaves 'limit' and 'difficulty_target' unexplained, adding partial meaning but not enough to cover the gap.

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 lists memories due for spaced review, with an optional preference for desirable-difficulty items. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'review' or 'review_batch'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'review' or 'practice_due'. It only hints at the desirable-difficulty option but gives no context for choosing this tool over others.

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