review_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Reviews the given code' doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it modifies code, what permissions might be needed, what format the review takes, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably analyzes code, this lack of behavioral context is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just 4 words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence 'Reviews the given code' fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal text creates ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 complexity of code review (which could involve security, performance, style, correctness, etc.) and the presence of multiple sibling tools with overlapping functions, this description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar tools available, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed to select and use this tool appropriately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('code' and 'focus_areas') adequately. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes valid 'focus_areas' or how they affect the review. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description adds zero value.

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 'Reviews the given code' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'review_code' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'explain_code' or 'fix_code' - both could involve reviewing code. The description lacks a clear verb+resource combination that defines what 'reviewing' entails versus other code analysis operations.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'explain_code', 'fix_code', and 'test_code' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for code quality assessment, security review, performance analysis, or general explanation. The agent receives no help in selecting between these closely related code analysis tools.

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