cantrip_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists items but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some context about filesystem environments but lacks comprehensive behavioral information.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter guidance. There is zero wasted text and it's well-structured with front-loaded information.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and parameter usage. However, it lacks details about return values, error conditions, and behavioral characteristics that would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'project' parameter. The description adds marginal value by explaining when to use the parameter ('cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts') and mentioning '.cantrip.json' override, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all items pending review') with specific scope ('inferred entities and open escalations'). It distinguishes from some siblings like cantrip_review_accept/dismiss/reject/resolve which perform actions on reviews, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like cantrip_history or cantrip_status.

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 clear context about when to use the 'project' parameter ('useful in cloud-hosted or multi-project contexts') and mentions overriding '.cantrip.json'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cantrip_history or cantrip_status, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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