claude_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The description states it 'reviews code and provides feedback', which implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the review triggers any side effects (e.g., file writes, git commits), or confirm that it is safe to use. Given the lack of annotations, more explicit behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 very concise with a single sentence: 'Ask Claude Code to review code and provide feedback.' It is front-loaded and to the point. While it could be more specific about scope (e.g., 'in the specified project'), it does not waste words. It could be slightly longer to include usage guidance without becoming bloated.

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 context (3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations, sibling tools), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention the return format or whether feedback is provided in the response or asynchronously. For a tool that may produce lengthy output, some guidance on what to expect would help the agent evaluate success. The description also misses the opportunity to clarify the relationship with similar claude_* tools.

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 does not add any additional semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. Each parameter (files, focus, project) is well-described in the schema, and the description does not need to add further value since schema coverage is complete. No points added or deducted.

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 purpose: to ask Claude Code to review code and provide feedback. The verb 'review' combined with 'code' and 'provide feedback' clearly conveys the action, and the input schema's focus parameter distinguishes this from other claude_* tools that might involve asking questions or explaining.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool's name (claude_review) and the availability of sibling tools like claude_ask, claude_task, and claude_explain provide implicit context. The description could be improved by noting when a code review is appropriate compared to general Q&A or task execution.

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