fetch_due_cards_for_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions fetching due cards with filtering options and output formatting for LLMs, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, error handling, or any side effects. Some behavioral context is given, but gaps remain.

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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into a clear parameter list. It is concise without unnecessary words, though the parameter documentation overlaps with the 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?

Given the 3 optional parameters and existence of an output schema, the description covers the filtering logic and default behavior. However, it does not explain the output format beyond 'formatted for an LLM' or mention ordering/pagination, which may be needed for full completeness.

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 67% (descriptions for 'limit' and 'today_only' but not 'deck'). The description adds missing info for 'deck' ('Filter by specific deck name') and clarifies defaults, but it largely repeats what is already in the schema for 'limit' and 'today_only'. It adds value for the undocumented parameter.

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 'Fetch cards due for review, formatted for an LLM to present.' This specifies the verb (Fetch) and resource (cards due for review), and the unique formatting purpose distinguishes it from siblings like 'num_cards_due_today' or 'submit_reviews'.

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 explains what the tool does and its parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_notes' or 'get_examples'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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