review_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the review purpose. It does not mention whether files are modified, how content is aggregated, or any prerequisites or side effects, leaving the agent to guess at the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content, making it efficiently worded.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior, but it only provides a high-level purpose. It also fails to mention how the folder content should be passed or what the analysis result looks like, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the parameters, so the schema carries the burden. The description mentions 'multiple files' and 'folder' which roughly aligns with folder_name and folder_content, but adds no additional semantics about model/provider or expected input format.

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 reviews multiple files in a folder to analyze relationships and module code quality, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like review_code (likely single-file) and review_project (broader scope) by focusing on folder-level analysis.

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 folder-level code review but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the description alone.

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