resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('List topics') and adds context about the time-sensitive nature ('due for review right now') and the recommendation to prioritize these over new topics. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or describe return format, but the verb implies no destructive effects, and the guidance adds useful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action, the second gives explicit call conditions, and the third provides a prioritization heuristic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and how to prioritize it over alternatives. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameter details. According to the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The schema is empty and fully covered vacuously.

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 first sentence 'List topics with elements due for review right now' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('topics') with a clear scope ('due for review right now'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'start_topic' (which starts new topics) and 'status' (which likely provides general state).

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 explicitly states when to call: 'when the user opens a session without naming a topic, or asks what they should study.' It also provides a prioritization rule: 'Reviewing something about to decay beats starting something new, so offer these before suggesting a fresh topic,' which guides the agent away from the alternative 'start_topic' toward this tool.

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