herdr_owned_reviewer_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit 'This is read-only' statement is a genuine, valuable disclosure confirming the operation does not mutate state, and 'persistent' adds lease-lifetime context. However, it stops there — no mention of pagination, return shape, or any operational caveats. It covers the core safety trait but little else.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: verb and resource first, scope qualifier second, read-only disclosure last. Every clause earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded for an agent scanning the description.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no required fields, no enums), and the description covers its purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, there is no output schema and the description gives no hint about return format, which leaves the agent blind to what the response looks like for what is fundamentally a listing operation. Adequate but with identifiable gaps for a read tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully explain the sole parameter by noting the list is 'optionally limited to one controller,' mapping to controller_id. This adds real meaning beyond the bare 'controller_id: string' in the schema. However, it doesn't define what a controller is or what omitting the parameter returns, leaving partial compensation for the coverage 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('persistent reviewer leases'), with an optional scope ('limited to one controller'). The resource name clearly differentiates this from the action-style siblings (herdr_owned_reviewer_start/close/cleanup) and from worker-focused tools via the 'reviewer' qualifier. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling contrast, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With dozens of siblings including herdr_lease_inventory and herdr_owned_worker_list, the description does not help an agent select between this and similar list tools. The 'read-only' note is behavioral, not usage routing, so an agent gets no context about when to prefer this over alternatives.

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