review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or handles errors. The claim of multi-file correlation is unsupported by the single-file input schema, causing potential confusion about actual behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It covers multiple aspects without redundancy, though it could benefit from clearer separation of capabilities.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines major features (security, performance, scoring) but omits details about return format or how multi-file correlation works. The contradiction between claimed multi-file support and the single-file schema reduces completeness.

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?

The description adds meaning by associating review types (security, performance, quality) with the review_type parameter, but it also introduces a multi-file concept not reflected in the schema. Given the schema description coverage is 75% (context), the description partially compensates but with inaccuracies.

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 tool performs a comprehensive code review covering security, performance, and best practices. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_file by emphasizing multi-file correlation and automated scoring.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given, and sibling tools like analyze_file or batch_analyze are not mentioned for comparison.

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