Review whole files with DeepSeek

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the useful detail that the server reads the files, so the agent does not need to read them itself. This clarifies the execution model and aligns with openWorldHint, though it does not discuss limits or response structure. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage context in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple with two parameters, good annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and calling convention. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but for a review tool the output is implied as the review itself, so completeness is sufficient.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (repo-relative paths, focus). The description adds 'Pass paths only; the server reads them', which reinforces the paths parameter but does not introduce new semantic meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 provides a DeepSeek review of complete files (resource) rather than a diff. It explicitly contrasts with diff-based review and gives example use cases (architecture, suspected bug, unfamiliar module), making the purpose unmistakable. The verb 'Get' is specific to the action.

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 gives explicit usage context: use when the question is about existing code rather than a change, and lists concrete scenarios. It says 'rather than a diff' which implies the sibling tool review_changes, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so it stops short of full explicitness.

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