jambavan_review_pack

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses reliance on knowledge graph and indexing, and mentions risk analysis. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of the tool (assembling a review pack) implies no side effects. Minor gap in stating non-destructiveness explicitly, but otherwise transparent.

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 concise sentences front-load the most critical information: what the tool produces, when to use it, and a prerequisite. No superfluous words; every part 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates the review pack contents and lists dependencies (jambavan_index). It covers usage triggers, inputs, outputs, and prerequisites, making the tool complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke.

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%, and schema descriptions are adequate (base ref auto-detection, max_files, include_worktree). The description adds context about the auto-detection feature and the meaning of the review pack output, which enriches understanding beyond the schema. Does not add new parameter details but complements well.

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?

Description explicitly lists all components of the review pack (touched files, symbols, callers, tests, failures, risk flags), clearly stating the tool's action and output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_index or jambavan_impact, which have different purposes.

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 exactly when to use: 'Call before opening/updating a PR, or whenever asked "what changed" / "review this branch".' Also includes a prerequisite: requires jambavan_index to have been run. This gives clear context and alternatives (implicitly, other tools are for different tasks).

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