review

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

With no annotations, the description clarifies the core behavior: multiple experts review from different angles and produce comprehensive advice, so the agent knows this is an advisory/read-only style operation. It does not disclose what happens when no advisors are specified, how focus affects the output, or the exact output format.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear label ('多角色会诊') followed by the behavior and outcome. There is no filler or redundancy; every part earns its place.

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 schema covers all parameters, and the description clearly communicates the expected output ('提供综合建议'). Since there is no output schema, this is enough for an agent to know what it will receive. The main gaps are unspecified default behavior when 'advisors' is omitted and the exact structure of the combined advice.

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%; all three parameters (proposal, focus, advisors) already have rich descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage, but also means it provides no extra 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 names a specific action ('评审方案' - review a proposal) and a clear resource (方案/设计/代码, reinforced by the schema). The '多角色会诊' framing makes the multi-expert purpose explicit, which helps distinguish it from generic tools. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool 'roundtable', which could serve a similar multi-perspective role.

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 usage: when a proposal exists and multiple expert perspectives are wanted. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'roundtable', 'consult', or 'critique', and it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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