identify_problematic_peer_reviews

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

The description does not add behavioral details beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=true). It does not explain the output format or what happens when criteria are applied. The annotation already indicates no mutations, so the description is not harmful but minimal.

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—one line for purpose and a simple Args list. No unnecessary words. Could be improved by structuring the usage guidance, but it is efficient as is.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context on when to use the tool and how the criteria parameter impacts behavior. Adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section explains each parameter: course_identifier as 'Course code or Canvas ID', assignment_id as 'Canvas assignment ID', and criteria as 'JSON string of custom flagging criteria'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only constraints.

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 'flags reviews that may need instructor attention', specifying the verb 'flag' and the resource 'reviews'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_peer_review_quality' by focusing on flagging for instructor attention rather than general analysis. However, it does not define what 'problematic' means.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_peer_review_quality or generate_peer_review_report. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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