read_review

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers unusually valuable interpretive warnings: counts are observations not time worked, projects are suggested groups, and no completed actions are inferred. These prevent the agent from over-reading the output, though permission needs and return structure are not addressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, and every sentence carries distinct information (scope, range limit, two interpretation caveats). Slightly dense phrasing, but no filler.

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 a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the range constraint and output interpretation but says nothing about the shape of the returned review/draft or how it relates to sibling read tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% (only bare 'Start'/'End' titles), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines an inclusive YYYY-MM-DD format and an upper bound of 31 days. That said, all the added meaning sits on the pair jointly rather than distinguishing start from end semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read an evidence-linked review and editable status draft') and clarifies what the payload is, which separates it from pure-data siblings like read_observation and read_day_flow. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling or stating when this review view is preferred over raw reads.

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 range constraint ('inclusive YYYY-MM-DD range, up to 31 days') gives usable invocation bounds, so usage is reasonably implied. However, nothing says when to choose this review tool versus read_observation, read_app_day, or read_day_flow, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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