review_agents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the analytical action but does not disclose whether the tool modifies data, requires permissions, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer if this is a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The key functionality is stated upfront, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lacks an output schema and does not describe the return format. For a diagnostic tool, the agent needs to know what the report looks like (e.g., categorical output). Additionally, behavioral transparency is missing, making the definition incomplete despite clear purpose.

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 input schema already documents both parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely echoing the step and threshold concepts. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: producing a diagnostic report on AGENTS.md section health. It specifies the verb (diagnostic), resource (AGENTS.md sections), and the cross-referencing action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_interaction or get_stats.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (checking AGENTS.md health) but does not specify when it should be preferred over siblings like evaluate_prompt or when not to use it.

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