review_fanout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that workers are detached, writes reports to disk, prints digests to stdout, and that collectors are batch-generic. It implies asynchronous operation via polling, but could be slightly more explicit about resource usage or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary of the action, a paragraph explaining behavior and follow-up steps, then a list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's role, its relation to research_fanout, and the lifecycle of results (poll with research_status, gather with collect_digests). It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke and manage the 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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so thoroughly: repo_path is mandatory, aspects default to a 7-aspect sweep, goal is an optional focus, tier defaults to 'pro', timeout defaults to '10m'. Each parameter's meaning and default are clearly stated.

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 it launches parallel codebase-review workers, one per aspect, using Antigravity jobs. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the code analog of research_fanout, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to launch codebase reviews, and how to follow up by polling with research_status and collecting with collect_digests. It also contrasts itself with research_fanout, clarifying context and alternatives.

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