rsi_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only implies mutations via the action names (approve/reject/rollback). It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what rollback or snapshot_switch actually change, blast radius, or whether generate/snapshot_export write files.

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 content is a single bare enumeration duplicated verbatim in Chinese, which wastes tokens for most agents without adding information. It is front-loaded but not structured, and every sentence is just a restatement of the schema enum.

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?

For a tool with mutation-capable actions and no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely underspecified: no lifecycle of proposals, no effect of approve vs rollback, no snapshot semantics, no return info. An agent can guess from action names but cannot call it confidently.

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 schema already documents action, reason, status, out_dir, version, and proposal_id. The description merely repeats the action enum values and adds no additional semantics (e.g., which ids come from where, what versions mean).

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?

It names a resource ('Harness improvement proposals') and enumerates actions (list/approve/reject/rollback/generate) plus config snapshots, but lumps two distinct domains into one tool without explaining what a 'harness improvement proposal' actually is. The purpose is recognizable but vague, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like rsi_feedback or rsi_learn.

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 only lists action values; it never says when to use this tool versus the many rsi_* siblings, nor when approval/rollback/generate are appropriate. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing.

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