list_my_reviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose sort order, returned fields, and the 1–50 limit range. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether results are scoped to the authenticated account, or what happens when the limit exceeds available reviews.

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 tight lines with the core behavior front-loaded and the parameter note following. Nothing is repeated or wasted, and the Args block is easy to scan.

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 explained in depth, and the tool is a single-parameter list. The remaining gap is account scoping and truncation behavior, minor but relevant for a per-user listing.

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, and it does: it explains that limit controls how many reviews are listed and bounds it to 1–50, which is not in the schema. Only the default of 10 is left to the schema, which is an acceptable division.

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 the user's ReviewMetric reviews') plus ordering ('newest first') and return content ('scores and Run IDs'). No sibling competes for the same job, so the lack of explicit differentiation is a minor gap rather than a confusion risk.

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?

Usage is implied by the possessive scoping ('the user's ... reviews'), and the ordering note hints at the common 'show my recent reviews' case. There is no statement of when-not to use it, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named among the many siblings.

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