Review a git diff

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description reinforces this by explaining why there's no write capability ("a review that edits the code it is reviewing is never wanted") and how it ignores permission ceilings. This adds valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences), efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes unique value: targets, auto-detection, read-only guarantee, and structured mode option.

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?

Given 10 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers key behavioral aspects (read-only, auto-detection, mutual exclusivity) and provides usage patterns. It doesn't explain return values, but since there's no output schema, the tool likely streams output. A slight gap is not detailing the polling flow for background runs, but overall comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter relationships (mutual exclusivity), auto-detection logic, and the purpose of structured mode, which goes beyond individual parameter schemas.

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 it reviews a git diff using Grok Build. It specifies the three targets (uncommitted, base, commit) and auto-detection behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check, grok, or sessions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each target mode (working tree, merge-base diff, single commit) and the auto-detection fallback. It also clearly states that review is read-only and lacks permission/write arguments, which helps the agent avoid misuse.

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