review_workspace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'escopo seguro' (safe scope), implying a non-destructive review of workspace changes, but it does not disclose return value, side effects, prerequisites, or any resource implications. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action and immediately explains the safe scope options. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description captures the essential purpose and scope modes but omits expected return details and operational prerequisites. This is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the three scope modes, echoing the schema's 'scope' parameter, but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 the tool executes 'codex review' with a specific safe scope (uncommitted, base diff, or commit). The verb 'Executa' and resource 'codex review' are specific, and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like run_codex by focusing on safe workspace review rather than general codex execution.

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 clear context on when to use the tool by listing the supported scopes (uncommitted, base, commit), which signals appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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