get_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key filtering behavior—only entries with review text are returned—but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means. This gives the core behavior but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the main filtering behavior and wastes no words. It captures the essential distinction in a compact, scannable way.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one well-named parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough for selection and invocation. It conveys what the tool returns, what it excludes, and how it differs from its sibling.

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 schema has a single username parameter with no description coverage, and the tool description does not mention username at all. However, username is self-explanatory, so the missing description is not a major obstacle. Still, the description adds no parameter-level nuance 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 names a specific verb and resource: it gets the user's diary entries that contain written review text and explicitly excludes plain 'watched on' logs. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_diary, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose.

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 makes the selection criteria clear: only diary entries with written review text, skipping plain logs. This implicitly tells the agent when to use get_reviews instead of the companion get_diary, though it does not explicitly name get_diary or state when not to use this tool.

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