ecosystem_deep_review_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the created row, its stage_status='queued', the derived read-only status column, the embedded dispatch_prompt, the watchdog that flips stage_status to shallow_failed on timeout, and the Leader's responsibility to spawn the sub-agent. This is rich, non-obvious lifecycle context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence and the rest details the lifecycle. It is fairly dense and includes implementation-level naming (stage_status codes), which is useful but slightly verbose. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with a rich output schema present, the description covers creation semantics, status derivation, timeout behavior, and follow-up responsibility well. Only the boundary against the batch sibling is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 repo_id, agent_id, priority, and timeout_minutes. The description adds meaning to timeout_minutes by tying it to the watchdog auto-fail, but adds nothing about agent_id or priority 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 first sentence states a specific verb (Queue) and resource (deep-review for a repo) plus the return value (dispatch prompt). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ecosystem_deep_review_request_batch, ecosystem_deep_review_status, and ecosystem_deep_review_cancel.

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 the usage context (queueing a deep review and then having the Leader spawn the sub-agent), but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as the batch variant or the status/cancel siblings. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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