Crew diff review

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read-only review operation. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotation: findings are split into 'evidence-checked (the quoted code really exists)' and 'unverified', which is output behavior the agent can't infer from the annotation alone.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: purpose first, then the structure of the output, then the call-to-action for when to invoke. Well front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully characterizes the result shape (evidence-checked vs unverified findings) so the agent knows what comes back. Combined with fully documented optional parameters and the readOnly annotation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 every parameter (base, focus, force, paths, workspace, includeUntracked) is already documented in the schema, including the truncation/timeout caveat on 'force'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that baseline, which is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource — 'review the current working-tree changes (staged, unstaged and new files)' — and enumerates the problem classes it hunts (bugs, security, concurrency, data-integrity). The purpose is unmistakable, though it does not name or differentiate itself from sibling tools like crew_second_opinion or crew_recon.

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?

'Run it after making changes and before saying you're done' gives a clear triggering context and an implicit when-not (don't run before you've made changes). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or the condition that would route an agent elsewhere.

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