architecture_review_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutates files, whether it fixes issues automatically or just reports them, whether it requires existing code to be present, or what it does with findings. For an analysis-type tool, the lack of clarity on whether it reports or fixes is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose with no waste. It bundles the verb, resource, and platform context efficiently. However, given the tiny length, it could have included more behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having 0 parameters and no output schema, the tool's simplicity does not fully excuse the sparse description. Given the web-specific naming and the existence of a sibling 'architecture_review', the description should clarify the distinction, the workflow position (e.g., run after implement_feature_web), and expected outputs. The sibling naming suggests possible duplication that isn't disambiguated.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and the description is not required to compensate for undocumented parameters since none exist. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, though the description could have explained what codebase it operates on.

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 states the tool reviews code for architectural compliance with Next.js patterns, using a specific verb (review) and resource (code compliance). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'architecture_review' through the '(Next.js patterns)' qualifier, making the web-specific scope clear.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'architecture_review' or 'implement_feature_web'. The description doesn't clarify the expected workflow (e.g., whether it should precede commit_pr or follow implementation), nor does it state any prerequisites. The Next.js qualifier implies use for web projects but this is implied rather than explicit.

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