get_review_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not add details about permissions, error handling, or what happens if the version has not been submitted for review. It is minimally transparent but sufficient for a simple getter.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundant or extraneous content. This is an exemplar of concise structure.

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 the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides the essential context: it retrieves the current review status for a version. It lacks detail on edge cases or the response format, but for a simple getter, the information is largely sufficient. A score of 4 reflects that it is nearly complete but could mention prerequisites or behavior when no review exists.

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 the parameter versionId described as 'The app store version ID'. The tool description repeats this concept but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the current review status for an app store version' clearly specifies the operation (get) and the resource (review status for an app store version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_review_submission by focusing on the version's review status. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage for checking review status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_review_submission or submit_for_review. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, so usage is only inferred.

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