code_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states that it 'creates a detailed code review prompt', but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it generates text, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the tool outputs (e.g., a text prompt), any constraints, or how it interacts with the code review process. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the purpose of 'reviewType' or provide examples beyond the enum). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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's purpose: '생성하는 도구' (creates) '상세한 코드 리뷰 프롬프트' (detailed code review prompt) for '사용자가 제공한 코드' (user-provided code). It specifies the verb (creates), resource (code review prompt), and target (user-provided code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_image' or 'calculator', which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for generating prompts versus executing reviews, or how it differs from general-purpose tools like 'greeting'. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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