review_code_quality

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

The description discloses that the tool performs static analysis without calling an LLM and lists the types of issues it scans for. However, it does not indicate whether it modifies files, the output format, or any limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and falls short of full transparency.

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 with no redundant information. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains its role as a pre-filter and lists checked issues, but it lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., findings list). This is a notable gap for practical usage.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds overall context (e.g., scanning TypeScript files for specific issues) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool is a static analysis pre-filter for Codex that scans TypeScript files for specific issues like `as any` casts and hardcoded secrets, clearly distinguishing it from Codex review tools.

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 advises running the tool 'before Codex review to save token costs', providing clear usage context. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like review_with_codex but doesn't explicitly list when not to use.

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