review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'returns signals and never edits files,' which reinforces non-mutation but does not disclose behavioral details like how pass_at/review_at affect the outcome.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; it front-loads the primary use case, then exclusions, then the key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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?

With nested schemas, an output schema, and safety annotations present, the description covers selection criteria, non-mutation, and the main parameters' roles. It is slightly incomplete on the meaning of threshold parameters, but the defaults and output schema make a valid invocation achievable.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the five parameters. It gives context for state ('whole-object artifact') and checks ('multiple checks'), but says nothing about model, pass_at, or review_at thresholds, leaving those to be inferred from names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('review'), identifies the target resource as a 'whole-object artifact such as a diff, plan, release, or test report', and states the mode ('against multiple checks'). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools verify, check, and route, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN conditions. It names the alternatives (verify, check, route) for each exclusion case, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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