aiworkhub_task_review_queue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that this returns only the bare queue and omits failures and stale work — a scoping trait not captured by annotations. It does not mention ordering or result limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by disambiguation. Every clause earns its place — the alternative routing is the highest-value information and is delivered without preamble.

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?

With no inputs, an output schema covering return values, and annotations covering safety, the description needs only to establish purpose and sibling routing, which it does. Minor omissions like ordering or whether the list is paginated are acceptable at 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List tasks waiting for Codex review.' The scope ('review-queue cards') is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling task tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for the bare list, aiworkhub_review_packet for one candidate's full review evidence, aiworkhub_completion_inbox for the queue plus failures and stale work. Both alternatives and the conditions selecting them are named.

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