review

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

With no annotations, description should disclose behavior. It mentions 'automated quality scoring' but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, if data is stored, or if it makes external calls. No safety or authorization details.

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?

Concise single sentence with bullet-style listing. Front-loaded with 'Comprehensive code review'. Structure is acceptable, though could be better organized.

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?

Missing output schema description despite claiming 'scoring and suggestions'. Multi-file correlation claim conflicts with single-file input. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 75%, so description adds limited value. It mentions 'multi-file correlation' hinting at file_path usage, but does not elaborate on review_type enum or provide richer parameter context.

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?

Description clearly identifies tool as a code review covering security, performance, best practices, with scoring and suggestions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file' or 'validate_changes'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Missing context on appropriate scenarios or alternatives, which is problematic given many related tools.

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