review

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as read-only, a key behavioral trait. Without annotations, it carries the burden and does so adequately, though it could mention delegation to other CLIs.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and read-only nature. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the complex 'targets' parameter or other crucial settings, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'provide diff or paths' omits the required 'targets' and other parameters like 'role' and 'safety_mode', failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 reviews diffs or files across targets and is read-only. However, it omits that 'targets' is required, which could confuse about what to provide.

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 implies usage when there is a diff or files to review, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'plan' or 'delegate', nor provides when-not-to-use guidance.

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