review_code_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it is a static analysis tool that does not call an LLM, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, return format, or potential side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the tool's function, usage context, and key behaviors. Minor gap: no explanation of return values or output format, but still adequate for selection.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing specific checks (e.g., 'as any', console.log) and default file paths, but does not elaborate on parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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's purpose as a static analysis pre-filter for Codex, scanning TypeScript files for specific structural issues. It distinguishes from siblings like review_with_codex by noting it runs without an LLM.

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 states when to use the tool ('Run before Codex review to save token costs'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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