Squad Review

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly: it discloses internal routing (Squad Reviewer at 'auto' tier, council row at 'confirm' for go/no-go or cross-domain), and explains delegated execution behavior (returns Coordinator persona, matched routing, framed dispatch request). This provides deep insight beyond the schema.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail without fluff. It efficiently packs routing logic, trigger conditions, and return behavior.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's internal logic, delegation behavior, and return value, leaving little ambiguity about what will happen and what the agent will receive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining how the 'request' parameter influences routing (e.g., go/no-go triggers council), but it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 verb and resource ('Run the squad's review stage') and provides explicit scoping ('review', 'validate', 'check quality', 'council', 'go/no-go'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the review/council workflow rather than planning or execution.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool ('Use for "review", "validate", "check quality", "council", or "go/no-go" requests') and explains conditional council engagement. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 5-level guidance.

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