review_diff

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is an analysis/read operation producing feedback rather than a mutation, which is useful. However, it omits any statement about prerequisites (must be inside a git repo), side effects, whether it writes anything to disk, or latency/cost characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then an Args/Returns breakdown that earns its space given the 0% schema coverage. Slightly padded by the two-sentence preamble, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, though it still does briefly ('comments organized by file and category'). Combined with full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only cross-tool routing left unresolved.

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 0%, so the schema alone leaves all four parameters undocumented. The description compensates fully: it explains base_branch's meaning and default, working_directory's default, enumerates the valid focus_areas values ('types', 'docs', 'style', 'errors', 'performance', 'architecture', 'all'), and gives a concrete example path for persona_file plus its fallback behavior.

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?

States a specific verb plus resource: reviews the git diff of the current branch against a base branch and returns structured feedback. It is clearly a diff-level reviewer, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like review_file or generate_review_report, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is implied by 'analyzes the diff between your current branch and the base branch,' which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of review_file as the alternative for single-file review, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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