lilbrain_pr_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool computes (changes, blast radius, complexity delta, risk), but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, whether it performs network calls, or whether it has side effects. The word 'auto-generate' implies non-destructive analysis, but this is not confirmed.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then lists key outputs. It earns its place without fluff, though the term 'context' is slightly vague and could be more precise.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs but omits details like how the base branch interacts with the result, what the return format looks like, and how this differs from closely related siblings. It is adequate but leaves some gaps for an agent to resolve.

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% because the single parameter base_branch has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema adequately documents the default value and purpose, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Auto-generate') and resource ('PR review context') and enumerates concrete outputs (changes, blast radius, new cross-subsystem edges, complexity delta, risk). It is clear about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like lilbrain_diff or lilbrain_impact.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It implies use for PR review, but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when lilbrain_diff, lilbrain_impact, or lilbrain_complexity would be more appropriate.

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