jambavan_review_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool depends on a prior jambavan_index run, uses the knowledge graph, references past failure records, and flags risks like open debt and missing test associations. This is substantive context. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, but 'Assemble' strongly implies a non-mutating analysis. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive enough to convey the tool's role and requirements.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (no output schema, no annotations), so the description must explain what the tool does and what it returns. It does this by listing the review pack's components in the first sentence and adding usage context. It lacks details about the exact output format (e.g., structured object vs text), but the enumerated contents give an agent enough understanding to invoke and interpret the result. A small improvement would be to state explicitly how the pack is returned, but the current description is fairly complete.

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?

All three parameters (base, max_files, include_worktree) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as auto-detection behavior or defaults. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assemble') and resource ('a review pack for the current branch vs a base branch'), then enumerates exactly what the pack contains (touched files, symbols, callers, test associations, failure records, risk flags). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jambavan_impact or jambavan_context by framing it around PR review and 'what changed' scenarios.

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 explicit usage timing: 'Call before opening/updating a PR, or whenever asked what changed / review this branch.' It also states a prerequisite (jambavan_index must have been run). However, it does not name alternative tools for when NOT to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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