Crew second opinion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds real context (ChatGPT is the default reviewer, disagreement is expected), but omits behavioral facts that matter for an external-model call: latency, cost, and that the reproduced request sends code/diff content to a third-party service.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage triggers, then a caution. No filler or restated title 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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the description only needs to carry intent and routing; it does both competently. The missing piece is explicit routing versus crew_review_diff and the external-call caveats.

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 all five parameters (base, files, subject, workspace, includeDiff) are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at the diff/plan inputs and adds no format or defaulting detail beyond what the schema states.

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: get an independent reviewer to critique a plan, design, or diff. A reader knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling crew_review_diff, which also handles diff review, so the agent must guess between them.

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 concrete triggering contexts (payments, auth, migrations, concurrency) and a usage stance ('weigh it, don't just accept it'). It stops short of a when-not rule or naming crew_review_diff as the alternative for plain diff review, which is the obvious collision case.

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