review_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the specific checks performed (hardcoded keys, debug logs, TODO/FIXME/HACK, long lines) and mentions it reviews both staged and unstaged changes. However, it does not clarify if the tool is read-only or what happens if no changes are present.

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 with a two-line summary followed by a bullet list of checks. Every sentence is meaningful, no fluff, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and checks well. It lacks details on the return format or how results are presented, but the context is largely complete for a stateless review tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the purpose and checks performed, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 uncommitted git changes and lists specific checks (hardcoded keys, debug statements, TODO/FIXME/HACK markers, long lines). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_file (which focuses on individual files) and check_project (broader scope) by targeting the diff of staged and unstaged changes.

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 before committing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like analyze_file or check_project. No exclusion criteria or recommended contexts are provided.

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