curator_review

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

Annotations do not indicate idempotency or destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details: force bypasses disabled daemon, dry_run short-circuits before spawn and returns inventory without advancing cursor. It does not describe the side effects of a normal run (e.g., spawn, cursor advance), but covers key behaviors.

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 concise, with six short sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (two boolean parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and parameters well. It does not explain the interaction between force and dry_run when both are true, nor the default return format for a normal run. However, the output schema likely fills that gap.

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 fully compensates. It explains the meaning of both boolean parameters in detail: force allows running even when CURATOR_INTERVAL_S=0, and dry_run inspects the inventory without spawning. This adds essential context beyond the schema.

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 tool's action ('Fire one curator pass') and identifies the resource. It distinguishes the purpose from sibling tools implicitly through its explanation of force and dry_run, but does not explicitly contrast with tools like 'curator_review_status' or 'auto_review_trigger'.

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 explicit usage scenarios: 'Use for one-shot triage or testing the prompt' for force, and 'Use to inspect what the curator child would see before paying for the spawn' for dry_run. It does not state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for basic selection.

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