get_review_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It adequately implies a read-only operation ('list'), but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. The default limit of 50 is mentioned, which is mildly helpful.

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 extremely compact: one-line purpose then a compact list of parameters. Every word is informative, with no redundancy. The front-loading of the core function is excellent.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. All four parameters are covered, though there is no mention of sorting or pagination beyond the limit. It is sufficient for a straightforward list tool but lacks edge-case guidance.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, yet the description defines all four parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., 'Filter by project', 'Filter by confidence level (seed, watered)'). This adds value beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 explicitly states 'List chunks needing review,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_reviewed' and 'submit_chunk', which perform different actions.

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 'mark_reviewed' or 'get_stats'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without usage heuristics.

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