it_ops_design_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool routes through a dispatcher and runs an action, but gives no indication of side effects, auth requirements beyond scope, or whether it is read-only or destructive.

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 very concise—three sentences that immediately state the action, routing context, and parameters. No extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on what a 'design review' entails, typical use cases, or how it relates to other it_ops actions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds brief explanations: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This provides some clarity but remains vague, lacking details on expected formats or constraints.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('it_ops domain agent action `design_review`'), indicating a specific action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `it_ops_analysis_review`, which are similarly structured.

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 provides minimal context on when to use the tool, only mentioning routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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