remember

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool reads the answers table, defines streak and due precisely, and clarifies the limitation of not being a full spaced-repetition scheduler. It does not mention side effects, but 'reads' implies a read-only operation.

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 and well-organized, with a lead summary followed by clear definitions of streak and due. The PRD reference adds useful context without bloating the text, though it could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the data source and non-SRS limitation. However, parameter semantics are incomplete, especially for 'limit' and the exact accepted values of 'operation', leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially explains operation concepts (streak/due) and mentions session_id in the streak definition, but it never explicitly maps the 'operation' parameter to allowed values and does not explain 'limit' or fully clarify session_id scoping for the due operation.

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 purpose: reviewing JLPT answer history with two operations, streak and due. It names a specific resource (your own JLPT answer history) and the two modes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like jlpt or knowledge beyond implying it is review-oriented.

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 gives useful context: it operates over the same answers table that jlpt/answer writes to, and it explicitly warns that this is NOT a full SM-2/FSRS scheduler. It implies when to use it (for streak/due review), though it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or list alternatives.

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