review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default single-agent behavior and fan-out capability, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or what side effects (e.g., file modifications) occur. Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides practical timeout guidance. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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's complexity (9 parameters, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it uses parameters like 'files' or 'extra_roots,' or the meaning of 'important_context.' The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without guidance on expected results.

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 only 22%, but the description does not compensate. It only implicitly guides the 'timeout_seconds' parameter via a recommendation, and fails to explain important parameters like 'prompt', 'files', 'model', 'reasoning_effort', or 'important_context.' The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Review code with one agent (default) or fan out to multiple specialist agents.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'brainstorm' or 'build.' The mention of multiple specialist agents adds clarity about capability.

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 gives context on when to use single vs. multi-agent review and provides recommended timeouts, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or how it compares to siblings like 'validate' or 'research.' No explicit exclusion or alternative references are given.

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