review

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Always read-only -- a review never mutates the tree', 'read-only consensus under the principal-reviewer persona', and the behavior of synthesize (default combined verdict, false for raw per-voice). This is transparent and thorough.

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 relatively long but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds information, though some redundancy exists (e.g., restating read-only). It earns its length due to the complexity of the tool.

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 (9 parameters, no required params, output schema exists), the description covers main parameters and behavior well. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites but is substantially complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains most parameters: targets (list of cli/model objects or strings), panel (saved panel with overrides), diff (unified diff inline), paths (files in scope), synthesize (boolean for combined verdict), role (principal-reviewer). Only timeout_s and working_dir are not explained, but the description adds significant value 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 states the verb 'Review' and the resource 'a diff or a set of files across one or more ACP agents (read-only)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it's a read-only consensus under the principal-reviewer persona, which is unique among the sibling tools.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: provide diff or paths, targets vs panel are mutually exclusive, synthesize defaults on, always read-only. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'consensus' or 'debate' but gives enough context for appropriate usage.

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