Bounty Operator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the internal verification behavior (every cited file and line checked against the manifest) and the auth posture ("No account needed"), which an agent cannot infer from 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads when to call it and what it reads, the second states the verification behavior and the return value. No restatement of the tool name or 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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names them for orientation. Combined with the outlined read/verify flow and the no-account note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small pointer for `context` ("the same context object prepare_review takes") and frames `manifest` as what "prepare_review or run_review returned, unchanged," but the remaining six parameters (model, source, stages, profile, provider) get no additional meaning from the prose.

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?

Specific verb chain (reads, checks, returns) over a named resource (the review vs. the manifest), and it explicitly states the output artifacts: verdict, reference problems, and the Markdown evidence packet with hashes. It is clearly distinguishable from prepare_review and run_review by naming the upstream tool it depends on.

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?

"Call after writing a review from prepare_review" gives a concrete sequencing prerequisite that tells the agent where this sits in the workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct comparison against run_review/run_gauntlet_plan, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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