Prepare a review

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: files are scanned for secrets, file contents are not sent back, blocking results enumerate file/line/kind, hosted profiles are refused with a specific code, and secret content is never transmitted. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the call-before instruction and each sentence carries new information (scan behavior, manifest, refusal routing, file-input modes). It is dense across eight sentences, but given the 7-parameter, nested-context surface, little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it still usefully enumerates what is returned. Against a complex tool with nested context and multiple profiles it covers the critical operational facts, though it does not address the mode parameter's effect, relying on the schema for that.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the files/paths duality ('paths for the server to read under its working directory, pass their text as files, or both'), which explains how the two input modes interact. It also names the core profiles (general, solidity, report) tied to the profile enum. It stops short of explaining mode or the context object, so it sits just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: prepare a review by scanning files for secrets and returning a SHA-256 manifest, reviewer instructions, output format and the request to answer. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling run_review by noting hosted profiles are refused here and must go there. An agent can tell what this does and which tool to pick without opening a schema.

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?

Opens with the triggering condition ('Call before reviewing code or a draft report with your own model') and gives an explicit alternative plus the exact refusal code (hosted_profile) that routes the agent to run_review. It also notes no account is needed and points to list_profiles for profile ids, leaving nothing to inference.

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