Agent Farm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool runs 'parallel code review' and returns 'security, performance, style, and refactoring analysis,' but lacks details on execution time, error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, input methods, and output. Each sentence adds clear value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a code review tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, output format beyond high-level categories, and differentiation from siblings. This makes it inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'code' and 'filepath' are alternative input methods ('Pass code directly OR filepath to read from disk'). However, with 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, it doesn't fully compensate—missing details like format constraints or examples. The baseline is 3 due to the schema's lack of descriptions, but the added value is minimal.

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: 'Run parallel code review with 4 specialized perspectives.' It specifies the verb ('run'), resource ('code review'), and scope ('parallel' with '4 specialized perspectives'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deep_analysis_swarm' or 'quick_swarm' that might also analyze code, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Pass code directly OR filepath to read from disk,' which implies two alternative input methods. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deep_analysis_swarm' or 'chunked_analysis,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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