get_review_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the report is human-facing and requires explicit approval, which is a key behavior. However, it doesn't specify what happens if approval is not granted, whether the report is persisted, or the exact structure of the approval status. The description is minimal and leaves much to inference.

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 concise, fitting in two sentences. The first sentence lists the report contents, and the second states the critical usage requirement. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes an action-oriented note. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured if it included param semantics.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to cover parameter meaning and return value expectations. It lacks both. The description explains the report contents partially but doesn't clarify what the output looks like or how it connects to other tools like record_human_review. Incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and there is one parameter (session_id) with no description in the schema. The description doesn't mention session_id at all, so the agent has to guess its purpose. The description should explain that session_id identifies the session for which the report is generated, but it doesn't, leaving the agent without essential 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 clearly states the tool creates a human-facing review packet with specific contents (open findings, evidence, proposed safe remediation category, approval status). It distinguishes itself by emphasizing the human-facing aspect and the approval workflow, which sets it apart from internal analysis tools like analyze_accessibility_evidence.

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 when to use this tool: before editing code and when explicit human approval is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_session_report, which might also provide report-like output. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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