thincms_list_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that reviews are ingested daily from Outscraper and sentiment is computed via AI provider. It also explains the confirmProductionWrite parameter's role. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list operation is read-only. Overall, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by filtering capabilities and data source context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, filtering dimensions, data provenance, and a usage hint. It lacks details on the response format (e.g., list of review objects) and any pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema. Still, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand when and how to use the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the filterable fields (post status, rating, sentiment, hold reason, drift flag) which groups parameters, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The usage hint for postStatus is a small addition. Overall, minimal extra value.

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 'List Google reviews ingested for the active site (Reviews Module v1).' This specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'Google reviews', and distinguishes it from other list tools by narrowing to reviews and the active site context.

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 a concrete usage hint: 'Use postStatus=posted to see what's currently on the public widget.' It also explains the data source (Outscraper, daily cron) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like thincms_get_review or other list tools. The guidance is helpful but could be more comprehensive.

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