repopilot_explain_review_signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The closing sentence ('Reads the stored review only; it runs nothing and changes nothing') largely restates those hints, though 'runs nothing' adds a small amount of extra assurance about side effects. Beyond that it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as lookup failure modes when a signal_id is unknown.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then a dense enumerated list of what is explained, followed by prerequisites and the sibling handoff. Every sentence carries routing or scoping information; the enumerated list is slightly long but each item is substantive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations already carry the safety profile. The description completes the picture with the call sequence, argument provenance, the alternative tool for findings, and the fact that no state changes occur.

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, including that `analysis_handle` falls back to the latest review. The description reinforces that signal_id must come from `tiered_signals` but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (explain one review signal) and enumerates exactly what it returns: provenance, confidence tier, gate-failure capability, affected files, verification steps, limits. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling repopilot_explain_finding, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (use after repopilot_review_change) and the exact source of the required argument (the `signal_id` from that report's `tiered_signals`). It also names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: findings use repopilot_explain_finding instead.

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