review_files

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: synchronous execution, file count/size caps, UTF-8 requirement, and the fact that this call cannot be continued with send_followup.

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 dense sentences convey the action, scope, constraints, and a key follow-up limitation without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers input constraints and the no-follow-up behavior, but does not state what the response contains or any error/output behavior. With no output schema and no parameter-level explanations, an agent lacks full information for a correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies input_paths somewhat (explicitly named files, size limits) and task implicitly, but gives no explanation for profile or max_output_tokens.

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 names a specific verb ('review') and resource ('explicitly named UTF-8 text or source files under the locked workspace root'), with clear constraints on count and size. The word 'Synchronously' differentiates it from asynchronous siblings like start_file_review.

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 useful context: it is synchronous, limited to 1-100 files, and cannot be continued with send_followup. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as start_file_review or send_followup, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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