The two tools are clearly differentiated by input: one accepts a code snippet directly, the other reads a file from disk. While they share the same review purpose, the distinct input mechanisms prevent meaningful confusion.

Both tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (review_code, review_file), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.

With only two tools, the server feels minimal for its intended scope. The count is borderline but acceptable for a focused performance-review utility, though it could benefit from additional entry points.

The tool surface covers two common input modes but lacks broader workflow support, such as analyzing a project directory, comparing branches, or generating reports. Agents may need to work around these missing capabilities.