curator_review

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: force overrides CURATOR_INTERVAL_S=0 gating, dry_run short-circuits before spawn, avoids cursor advance, and normal execution implies spawn and cursor progression. This adds real side-effect context beyond the basic readOnly/idempotent/destructive flags.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses short labeled sections for each flag. Every sentence adds value; there is no padding or repetition of schema details.

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 two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the behavior, the daemon-interval interaction, and the dry-run return preview. It only lightly explains what a 'curator pass' actually entails, but that is somewhat implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both boolean parameters with their exact effects. force and dry_run are both given precise semantics, making the agent able to use them correctly without further inference.

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 opens with the specific action 'Fire one curator pass,' which clearly identifies the operation. It explains how the two flags alter behavior, giving an agent a clear sense of what this tool does, though it relies on the slightly jargon-heavy term 'curator pass'.

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 context: force=True for one-shot triage or testing when the daemon is disabled, and dry_run=True for inspecting inventory shape before a batched spawn. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like curator_run, but the use cases for each flag are clear.

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