review_summarize_file

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

Annotations only cover write/idempotent/non-open-world. The description adds real behavioral facts beyond that: it overwrites the file's earlier summary, it transitions a file with no state to reviewed, and it returns a confirmation. It stops short of permissions or size/rate constraints, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 four short sentences with no filler; the alternatives clause is deliberately last. 'Answers a confirmation' is slightly awkward phrasing, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a 2-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the overwrite semantics, the state change, and a minimal return statement. Return details are thin ('Answers a confirmation') but sufficient for this interaction pattern.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by specifying what the 'text' parameter should contain ('what you checked, the risks you see, what comes next'), which is content guidance the schema's 'a few lines, in Markdown' does not provide.

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?

Specific verb+resource (record a file's mini-summary) inside a clearly scoped context (guided review of a single file). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling session_summarize, and separates a per-file action from the whole-review action.

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?

States the trigger condition plainly: 'when you finish reviewing it in a guided review,' and names the alternative for the other case ('For the whole review use session_summarize'). An agent has an explicit routing rule and does not need to infer it from sibling names.

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