review_design

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

The description details the return structure (findings grouped by severity with rule IDs, rationales, citations, and markdown summary) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has prerequisites, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with action and key output, no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.

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 complexity of auditing a board against a rule catalog, the description covers the return format but omits whether the operation is synchronous, requires existing projects, or any prerequisites. With no output schema, more detail on the markdown summary and result structure would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly adds meaning by stating the project parameter identifies which board to audit, but does not specify format, examples, 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 'Audit' and the resource 'board against the full Hartley/Phil's Lab rule catalog', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'run_drc' or 'review_topic'.

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 implies the tool is for a comprehensive rule check when a basic DRC is insufficient, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'run_drc' or 'review_topic'.

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