review_topic

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('audit') without explaining side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent cannot determine if this tool modifies the design or requires specific 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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and immediately provides the list of rule families. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameter values but omits return format, behavior, and prerequisites. It is adequate but leaves significant gaps for the agent to resolve.

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?

The input schema shows two parameters (topic, project) with no descriptions or enums. The description adds meaning by listing valid topics (stackup, grounding, etc.), which partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, the 'project' parameter is not described, and the topic values are only implied.

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 audits a rule family and lists specific families (stackup, grounding, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('rule family'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'review_design' or 'run_drc', which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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