ingest_review_queue

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

readOnlyHint=true already conveys safety, so the description only needs to add context. It does say the result is pending notes grouped by analysis_id×Qi, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, whether all pending notes are included, or what a group contains.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and grouping key front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is slightly too terse and jargon-dense ('_inbox', 'analysis_id×Qi') for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No output schema exists, so explaining the return shape matters, yet the description only says 'grouped' without describing group structure or ordering. For a no-arg read tool this is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing at what it will receive.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to explain or compensate for.

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 action ('グルーピングして返す') on a specific resource ('_inbox の保留中ノート') and names the grouping key (analysis_id×Qi). An agent can tell this is a read-only pending-queue listing, distinct from mutation siblings like ingest_stage/ingest_promote/ingest_reject, though the term 'note' and composite key are not elaborated.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus curation_review, ingest_stage, ingest_promote, or ingest_reject. The pending-inbox context implies it precedes staging/promotion, but that workflow is left for the agent to infer.

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