review_thread

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

Annotations provide minimal info, but the description fully details behavior: it spawns a child Claude process, writes back via memory/skill tools, sets write-origin for curator pruning, and explains both modes ('auto' versus 'inline'). This exceeds annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, then detailed parameter explanations. Each sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are handled. The description covers purpose, parameters, modes, and side effects (spawning a process, resource usage). It could explicitly mention the thread_id parameter and prerequisites like thread being closed, but it is already quite complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'focus' and 'mode' parameters in detail with their enumerated values and effects. 'thread_id' is implied by context but not explicitly documented. Overall, the description adds significant meaning 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?

Description clearly states the tool spawns a background review of a closed thread to extract memory/skills. The verb 'spawn' and resource 'review' are specific, and the description and parameter options distinguish it from sibling tools like 'curator_review' 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 implies usage for extracting memories/skills from a closed thread but does not provide explicit comparisons or exclusions relative to similar reviewing tools among siblings. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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