review_file

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'by reading it from disk', which indicates a read-only operation and no modification to the file. However, it does not disclose return value format, potential side effects, or required permissions/context.

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, direct sentence that immediately conveys purpose and method. It is concise with no unnecessary words and well-front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but no output schema exists and the description does not specify what the analysis returns (e.g., a report, list of issues). Given the read/analysis nature, this return value gap makes it incomplete.

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 schema already fully defines the 'path' parameter. The description adds minimal additional meaning, just reinforcing that it's a React/TypeScript file, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('React/TypeScript file'), and the focus ('performance issues'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'review_code' by specifying file-level analysis via reading from disk.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'review_code'. The description implies usage for performance analysis of a file, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool or any alternatives.

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