review_list_due

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

No annotations provided, but the description explicitly states the tool has no side effects, is safe to call repeatedly, and returns a sorted list. It also describes the sorting order and return fields, adding behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 concise, with four sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, eligibility, sorting, distinction from sibling, return fields, and safety. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It includes eligibility, sorting, and return fields, making it complete for an effective tool selection.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail but compensates by explaining the implicit filtering criteria (date conditions and project status). Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 lists projects due for review, specifying the resource (projects), action (list due), and condition (next review date today or earlier or never set). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool project_list by advising not to use it to get all projects.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (for due review projects) and explicitly advises against using it to get all projects, pointing to project_list as the alternative. However, it does not include further exclusions or conditions.

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