review_file

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 discloses that the tool reads from a local path, but it does not mention any side effects, permissions, return format, or error behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.

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, concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately short for a tool that leverages review_code's description.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain what kind of review is performed, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites. Compared to the complexity of a file review tool, this description lacks sufficient context.

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 has one 'path' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the path is a 'local path,' which gives some meaning beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain expected format, required nature, or semantics. It provides marginal compensation for the low coverage.

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 specifies the action 'review' and the resource 'file', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool review_code by noting it reads from a local path first. This clearly conveys what it does, though it relies on the reader knowing what review_code does.

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?

By saying 'Same as review_code, but reads the file from a local path first,' it implies this tool is for reviewing code from a local file, while review_code likely handles code passed directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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