review_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real trait: entry bodies are omitted from results. Beyond that it says nothing about ordering, default limit, or whether this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which matters for an unannotated tool.

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 no filler; the scoping clause ("without entry bodies") is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more. It does not state ordering, result shape, or the default limit, so an agent cannot reliably predict the call's behavior.

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 "limit" has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, its default, or its maximum. With zero descriptive compensation, an agent cannot tell whether pagination must be driven manually.

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?

"List unfinished knowledge" gives a verb and a rough resource, and "without entry bodies" narrows the scope. However, "unfinished knowledge" is vague and never connects to the review-queue concept implied by the name, so the agent must infer the domain. It is distinguishable from siblings only weakly.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as find_candidates, list_pending_attachments, or list_trash. No prerequisites or follow-up actions (e.g., complete_review) are mentioned, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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