review_code_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention what checks are performed, whether the review is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that reviews 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 a single sentence and not wasteful, but it is overly terse. It conveys the core purpose but lacks any elaboration, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is a code review tool with a specific domain lens (trauma-informed principles) yet there is no output schema or description of the return value, criteria, or how the review is conducted. The description is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 'language') with brief descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning or examples to these parameters, matching the baseline for high schema 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 states a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('code') with a clear focus ('trauma-informed principles'). It distinguishes from siblings like review_trauma_content by targeting code specifically, though it does not explain what the review produces or how it differs from validate_engagement_safety.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, best contexts, or why an agent should choose this over validate_engagement_safety or review_trauma_content.

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