review_pr_diff

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions using 'ruff + legacy regex rules' but does not explain side effects, permission requirements, or what constitutes 'structured findings'. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state or accesses 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, no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 an output schema exists, return values are not needed in the description. However, the description omits important context like required access permissions, the fact that it uses specific static analysis tools, and how the 'structured findings' are structured. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description should add meaning beyond parameter names. It does not describe any constraints, formats, or examples for 'repo' or 'pr_number'. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but lacking detail hurts usability.

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 reviews a PR diff using 'ruff + legacy regex rules' and returns structured findings. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_pr_diff (which only retrieves the diff) and comment_pr_review (which adds comments).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as comment_pr_review or create_issue. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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