rva_review_result

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context by specifying the binding to the latest execution and canonical artifact hashes and the mandatory queueing of review, which are not in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like overwriting previous results or failure modes.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and the allowed dispositions. It is concise and to the point, with no wasted words.

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 a complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It omits essential details such as the required fields within result_claim (schemaVersion, claim, evidenceSummary, contractId, limitations, proposedResearchStateAdvance) and the meaning of task_id. An agent would need to inspect the schema to construct a valid call, which the description does not compensate for.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on task_id or the required structure of result_claim. It only hints at binding to hashes, leaving the agent to infer that the nested object contains artifact and hash fields. This is insufficient given the complexity of the result_claim object with multiple required fields.

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 action: 'Record a FAVORABLE, NULL, ADVERSE, INCONCLUSIVE, or FEASIBILITY_ONLY result bound to the latest completed execution and canonical artifact hashes, then queue mandatory RVA result review.' It specifies a verb, resource, and the distinct disposition set, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rva_review_contract and rva_challenge_result.

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 implies a clear use case (recording a result and queueing review) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like rva_challenge_result or rva_retry_unavailable_review. There is no guidance on conditions that would make another tool more appropriate, so the agent must infer from context.

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