review_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'analyzes' without revealing side effects, whether code is sent to external agents, permission requirements, read-only nature, or output/return behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that processes user-supplied code.

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 and 14 words, thoroughly front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy, 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to cover important context like return values, how to choose an agent, behavior on timeout, or error handling. It does not complete the picture for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 all parameters have documentation. The description's mention of 'bugs, security, performance, and clarity' maps to the focus enum, but it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 using a specific agent. Analyzes for bugs, security, performance, and clarity.' It names the verb 'review' and the resource 'code', and specifies focus areas. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like debug_with or explain_with, which could also analyze code.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. With siblings like debug_with, refactor_with, and ask_agent, the lack of usage context leaves the agent to guess when review_code is the best choice.

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