get_cards_for_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not discharge it. It does not say whether fetching due cards mutates scheduling state, how many cards are returned, whether results are ordered, or whether this is strictly a read operation. For a spaced-repetition tool where 'due' has scheduling semantics, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the definition is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least hint at result ordering, limits, or the meaning of 'due' relative to review scheduling; those are absent.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including that deckName is optional and that omitting it searches all decks. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a clear qualifier: cards 'due for review'. An agent can distinguish this from search_cards or list_decks by the review-due scope. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for other card retrieval needs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to search_cards, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'due for review' implies a spaced-repetition review session, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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