review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the process and return format, but doesn't disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or is read-only. The mention of 'trust degradation' hints at internal behavior but is not fully elaborated.

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, well-structured sentence. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, process, and output without unnecessary words. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value; it does mention verdict and issues. It also explains the effect of the 'verbose' parameter. However, for a complex tool, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the 'issues' list or how to interpret the 'verdict' values, but it's still reasonably complete for a concise description.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description doesn't add much beyond that. The 'verbose' parameter's effect on output is mentioned in the schema, and the description reaffirms it. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, and no additional semantic clarity is provided.

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 function: it performs multi-model consensus review of agent output, checking for hallucinations, factual errors, and logical errors. It also mentions the return format (verdict and issues), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 outlines the review workflow (zero-cost validator, screening, committee, debate) which gives a sense of when it might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state conditions for use versus alternatives, though no siblings exist. It could be clearer on when to invoke this tool vs. a simpler check.

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