review_queue_add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is available. The description adds that the item is external and queued for planned review, but says nothing about validation, duplicate handling, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. It is efficient and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and trigger.

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?

For a tool with two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action and trigger but leaves path/note semantics unaddressed and does not explain how adding relates to review_queue_list or review_queue_next. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only implies that path refers to the external repository/folder; the note parameter is entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's raw property names.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('external repository/folder') and names the target list ('planned review list'), which distinguishes it from siblings like review_queue_list and review_queue_next. The trigger clause 'user selects 1' reinforces its role. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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?

The phrase '用户选 1 时调用' gives an explicit trigger condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with related queue tools.

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