get-user-review

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It hints that the tool provides 'honest, critical feedback' and implies a human reviewer, but it doesn't specify whether the review is synchronous, if there are delays, or any required permissions. The description is vague about the mechanics.

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 moderately concise with multiple sentences and a bulleted list. Each part adds value, but it could be tightened without losing meaning. Not excessively long, but not extremely efficient.

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?

Missing important details: no mention of what the tool returns (string, object, etc.), whether the review is instant or queued, or any prerequisites. With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover these aspects for completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds usage context (e.g., 'after significant work') but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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's action ('Get a user review') and resource ('the work that was completed'). It also elaborates on the purpose: connecting with a user reviewer for feedback on work. No sibling differentiation needed as no siblings are listed.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool with three bullet points (after completing significant work, when needing feedback, to validate implementation). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but given no siblings, this is sufficient.

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