review_plan

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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool is single-shot per session and will be refused if a route exists, and it returns a routed-file count plus the 'uncovered' files the scope contains but the route left out. That post-condition and refusal semantics go beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and timing, then alternatives, then the refusal rule. Dense but every sentence carries information; the inline CLI invocation for the out-of-scope path is the only slightly heavy element.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return shape (routed count and uncovered files), the prerequisites, the single-use constraint, and the remedy when refused. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect back.

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 'route' and 'sessionId' are already fully documented (including priority ordering, relatedFiles, and suggestedReviewMode). The description contextualizes the route via the uncovered-files concept but adds no parameter-level format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a guided review's ranked route') and immediately scopes it as 'the planning pass, once per session, before you review any file.' That framing separates it from the sibling review_propose_route_change, which it explicitly names as the change path.

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?

Gives the timing ('once per session, before you review any file'), the downstream routing alternatives (review_propose_route_change for files in the route, an out-of-scope declaration for files not), and an explicit exclusion ('Refused if the session already has a route; propose a change instead'). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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