code-reviewer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description of performing a review. The description adds behavioral context about what the review focuses on (bugs, security, maintainability) and what it ignores (style). However, it does not disclose what the output looks like or any side effects, though the read-only annotation covers the main behavioral trait.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage context. Every word adds value, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 six parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage but omits explanations of most parameters and the expected output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 must compensate. The description hints at the purpose of the 'files' parameter ('review a diff or file') and implicitly the 'prompt' parameter for instructions, but it does not explain the remaining four parameters (expert, developerInstructions, cwd, reasoningEffort). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to set parameters appropriately.

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 tool performs code review focusing on bugs, security holes, and maintainability, and explicitly excludes style nitpicks. It also specifies the usage context (before merging). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like security-analyst or plan-reviewer.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'to review a diff or file before merging.' It implicitly excludes style review by stating 'not style nitpicks.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings or when not to use it beyond the style exclusion.

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