request_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. It usefully reveals the default thesis-reuse behavior and that the outcome is a reviewer answer or verdict without duplicating the brief. However, the schema hints at multiple action modes (request/reassign, get/list, thesis/synthesis) that the description never mentions, and nothing is said about side effects, ownership requirements, or success/failure conditions.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the actionable parameter switch. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. The opening phrase 'Primary workflow name' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the request action flow. It ignores the other actions implied by the parameter descriptions (reassign, get, list, thesis, synthesis), and does not explain side effects, what a successful request returns, or how identity/continuity tokens factor in. A 9-parameter tool with zero annotation support needs a more complete orientation than this.

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. The description does add real meaning to use_brief_as_thesis and issue_description by explaining how the brief becomes the thesis and how to opt out. Most other parameters (reason, agent_id, continuity_token, proposed_conditions) receive no added context beyond their schema descriptions, and the multi-action meanings hinted at in the schema are not reconciled.

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 states a specific purpose: it is the primary entry point for a structured review workflow, implemented via dialectic(action='request'). It clarifies what the tool produces — a reviewer answer or a verdict — and distinguishes it from siblings like record_result and health_check. It could be sharper (the phrase 'primary workflow name' is slightly abstract), but the core verb+resource is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as consult, start_session, or record_result, and no exclusions are stated. The only usage hint is the parameter-level instruction to pass use_brief_as_thesis=false for the explicit two-call flow, which is behavioral parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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