review_change

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing the exact sequence of operations (runner edits → diff captured → reviewer judges → verdict returned). It also discloses specific edge-case behaviors: untracked files are reviewed by contents (bounded per file) and the diff may include pre-existing dirty changes. This adds substantial value beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags.

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 compact and well-structured: three sentences that explain the core workflow, a prerequisite, and two important edge-case caveats. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids redundancy, earning its place with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-agent, 8 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: operational flow, return contents (verdict, runner output, diff, review), and environmental requirements. However, it could more explicitly state that this is a persistent-mutation operation and when to avoid it, though annotations handle the safety flag partially.

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 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the role of `runner` and `reviewer` (one edits, one judges) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. No additional parameter context is provided beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: run the `runner` agent to edit files, capture the `git diff`, then have the `reviewer` agent judge it and return a verdict with outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `codex` or `run_all` by describing its unique multi-step review workflow.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when you need an agent to make a change and have another agent review it. It also gives a necessary prerequisite ('Requires a git worktree') and warns about pre-existing changes in a dirty worktree, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out when not to use the tool.

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