Review changes with DeepSeek

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: the server runs the diff itself and the user must NOT paste code. It also discloses the return format ('findings grouped by severity with file:line anchors'), giving the agent a clear expectation of output. This is genuinely helpful and non-redundant.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, a critical behavioral warning, and output format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 explains exactly what the tool does, when to use it, a key usage caveat, and the return structure. Annotations cover safety and open-world assumptions. The description is fully self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for all three optional parameters (base, focus, paths). The description's mention of 'which changes to look at' is consistent with the path/focus parameters but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get an independent code review from DeepSeek on the current git changes.' The verb 'get' plus the resource 'current git changes' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like review_files (file-level) and consult (general consultation).

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 when-to-use guidance ('Worth using for substantial changes... anything before a PR') and when-not-to-use ('not worth the round trip for one-line edits'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between this and related tools.

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